Allowed

Vinothraja v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Dec 2019CRL OP(MD)/19271/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused. The court found the transaction to be a private dispute and imposed conditions including the execution of a bond, appearance before police for interrogation, and appearance before the Magistrate within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with conditions: execution of bond, appearance before Magistrate within 15 days, and appearance before police for interrogation.

Vinothraja Vs The Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.19271 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 19/12/2019

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.19271 of 2019

¶8

VINOTHRAJA ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2

¶9

¶10

STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTHAKADAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT CRIME NO.391 OF 2019. ... RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS.

¶11

For Petitioner : M/s. R. Anand, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C

¶13

PRAYER :-

¶14

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.391 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police

¶15

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶16

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

¶17

The petitioner apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C., in Crime No.391 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the transaction was only between the petitioner's father and the defacto complainant. It appears that a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs was paid to A1. Rs.10 Lakhs has already been returned to the defacto complainant and the petitioner has agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.10 Lakhs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the defacto complainant within a period of four months.

¶19

1/2

¶20

CRL OP(MD). No.19271 of 2019

¶21

Recording the said undertaking, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, Madurai District, and on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously.

¶22

The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed.

sd/-

19/12/2019

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶27

¶28

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MELUR, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶29

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶30

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTHAKADAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶31

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶32

+1 CC to M/s.R.ANAND, Advocate ( SR-22259[I] dated 19/12/2019 )

¶33

ORDER

¶34

¶35

CRL OP(MD) No.19271 of 2019 Date :19/12/2019

¶36

PNN

¶37

JM/VR/SAR 2/06.01.2020/2P/6C

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

2/2

Vinothraja v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinothraja v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Rathinasamy Vs P.Soundhiram

C.N.Sundaraj (Deceased) Vs R.Krishnan

A.S Madheswaran Vs Senthilkumar

M. Thirunavukarasu Vs T. Meenalochani

Chinnammal @ Subbathal Vs R.Krishnan

K.Murugan Vs Sri Ram Chits Tamil Nadu P Ltd.