Allowed

Gandhimathi v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC9 Oct 2020CRL OP(MD)/4472/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, a pregnant women, in a criminal case where she was implicated as an accused. The interim protection against arrest was made absolute subject to bond conditions and appearance before the magistrate.

What did the court decide?

The interim order granting protection against arrest is made absolute, and the petitioner is released on bail subject to specific bond conditions and appearance requirements.

Gandhimathi Vs The Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.4472 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Date : 09/10/2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.4472 of 2020

¶7

Gandhimathi ... Petitioner/Accused Rank Not Known

¶8

¶9

State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Keeranur Police Station, Pudukottai District. Crime No.21 of 2020

¶10

... Respondent/Complainant

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Anandha Padmanaban, Advocate for

¶12

Mr.A.Mohan, Advocate.

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

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

¶15

PRAYER : For Anticipatory bail in Crime No.21 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶16

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶17

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

¶18

2.The petitioner applied for Anticipatory Bail as she apprehended arrest at the hands of the respondent in FIR No.21 of 2020 registered on the file of the respondent. When the case was listed before me, the petitioner was pregnant. Considering the advanced stage of her pregnancy, I granted interim protection to the petitioner against arrest. The petitioner had delivered a child in June 2020. Now the stand of the respondent is that the petitioner appears to be fit to be arrested. But then, the petitioner's counsel would point out that there are as many as 33 accused in this case. Out of them, nine were already named in the First Information Report. The petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in the First Information Report and she has been implicated on the strength of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the confession given by the co-accused. The Final Report has been

¶19

1/2

¶20

CRL OP(MD). No.4472 of 2020

¶21

filed and it has been taken on file on 07.01.2020, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Keeranur.

¶22

3.There is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the interim protection already granted to the petitioner deserves to be made absolute and accordingly, the interim order is made absolute. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur, and on her 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.

¶23

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

¶24

sd/-

¶25

09/10/2020 / TRUE COPY /

¶26

/ /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶27

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶28

¶29

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KEERANUR.

¶30

DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

¶31

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEERANUR POLICE STATION, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MS/VR/SAR-4/19.10.2020/2P.5C

¶33

2/2

Gandhimathi v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gandhimathi 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

Mohammed Ibrahim Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Velmurugan Vs The Inspector of Police

N.Mohamed Ibrahim Vs The Inspector of Police

M. Seetha Lakshmi Vs the Govt. of Tamil Nadu

J.Manuel Raj Vs the District Collector

Abdul Nazar Vs The Inspector of Police