S.Mohan v. the State Rep.by
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed anticipation bail petitions on the grounds that the petitioner's counsel no longer pressed the case and the other petitioners' names were deleted from the charge sheet.
What did the court decide?
The Criminal Original Petitions were closed as the second petitioner's counsel did not press the case and the first and third petitioners' names were deleted from the charge sheet.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.Nos.12403 & 11947 of 2020
1.S.Mohan
2.P.Kunjithapatham ... Petitioners in
Crl.O.P.No.12403/2020
3.N.Kamakodi ... Petitioner in
Crl.O.P.No.11947/2020
Vs.
The State Represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Namakkal Police Station,
Namakkal.
Crime No.14 of 2020. ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their
arrest in Connection with the Crime No.14 of 2020 pending on the
file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners : M/s.AL.Ganthimathi
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER (This 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 406 and 408 IPC, in Crime No.14 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
S.Mohan
- petitioner
P.Kunjithapatham
- petitioner
N.Kamakodi
- respondent
The State
- respondent
The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court