The High Court of Madras heard an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC regarding arrest apprehended in IPC offences. Relied on antecedents of the petitioners, the Court dismissed the petition refusing bail.
Application for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.12167 of 2020
1.Tamilarvan
2.T.Stalin Bharathy 3.S.Veerapandi 4.Ilayarasan ... Petitioners
Vs.
State rep. by,
The Inspector of Police, Needamangalam Police Station, Thiruvarur District.
(Cr.No.11 of 2020) ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.11 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Needamangalam Police Station, Thiruvarur District.
For Petitioners : M/s.D.Bharathy
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(The case has been heard through video conference)
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.11 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to wordy quarrel, the petitioners assaulted the de-facto complainant and the defacto complainant was admitted in G.H. Hospital at Mannargudi. Hence, the complaint
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that due to local election dispute, a false case has been registered against the petitioners. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that there are 47 previous cases against the petitioners and hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the previous antecedents of the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
04/09/2020
This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned
TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NEEDAMANGALAM.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEEDAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVARUR DISTRICT
CC to D.BHARATHY Advocate on payment of necessary charges
CRL OP.12167/2020
Date :04/09/2020
MK:18/09/2020
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners apprehending arrest on allegations ofIPC offences 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) considering their antecedents.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
1. Tamilarvan 2. T. Stalin Bharathy 3. S. Veerapandi 4. Ilayarasan
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Needamangalam Police Station, Thiruvarur District
A.D. Jagadish Chandira
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
