The Madras High Court dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., holding that the existence of two prior cases, including one under the POCSO Act, made the petitioner not entitled to relief.
Anticipatory bail petition is dismissed; the order must be produced and executed.
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 : 11.11.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTIC E A. D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P.No.17371 of 2020
R.Aravind ... Petitioner
Vs. The State Represented by, ...Respondent The Inspector of Police, Needamangalam Police Station, Tiruvarur District. (Cr.No.1395 of 2020)
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No.1395 of 2020 on the file of the respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Bharathy For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER
(This case has been heard through video conference)
The petitioner who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 324 and 506 (2) of IPC, in Crime No.1395 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
3 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the injured has been discharged from the hospital. He would further submit that there are two previous cases as against the petitioner, out of which one is under Section 307 of IPC and another one is under POCSO Act registered during the year 2019. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner shall be granted anticipatory bail given two previous cases including POCSO.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Aravind
The State
E A. D. Jagadish Chandira
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
