Allowed

Arunraj @ Arunkumar v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Jul 2020CRL OP(MD)/7529/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a petition for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, facing charges of theft, obtained bail by executing a non-refundable Demand Draft. The petitioner was ordered to appear before the Magistrate within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with a condition to deposite Rs. 20,000 via Demand Draft and appear before the Magistrate within eight weeks.

Arunraj @ Arunkumar Vs The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.7529 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 24/07/2020

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.7529 of 2020

¶8

Arunraj @ Arunkumar ... Petitioner/3^rd Accused

¶9

¶10

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Nazareth Police Station, Nazareth. (Crime No. 176 of 2019). ... Respondent/Complainant

¶11

For Petitioner : M/s.K.P.Narayanakumar, Advocate.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

PRAYER :-

¶15

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.176 of 2019 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(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent.

¶18

The petitioner apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under section 379 of I.P.C., in Crime No.176 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) pointed out that the petitioner's earlier petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed in view of his bad antecedents. He states that there is no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ change in circumstance.

¶20

¶21

CRL OP(MD). No.7529 of 2020

¶22

The objections raised by the learned Government Advocate are no doubt sound. But I have to take note of the current pandemic times. The petitioner is said to be a poor driver. The petitioner undertakes that he will take a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.20,000/(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the credit of Mangayar Mangalam, Bank of Baroda, Egmore Branch, Chennai – 600 008 in S.B.A/c.No.12730100005505 and IFSC: BARB0EGMORE. This will be a nonrefundable payment. This is of course without prejudice to the defence of the petitioner in the trial.

¶23

Recording the said undertaking given by the petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, 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.

¶24

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.

¶25

sd/24/07/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶26

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.

¶27

¶28

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SATHANKULAM.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

CRL OP(MD). No.7529 of 2020

¶32

DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶33

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAZARETH POLICE STATION, NAZARETH.

¶34

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

¶35

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.7529 of 2020 Date :24/07/2020 PMU SRS/ VR/ SAR-II/ 28.07.2020/ 3P/5C

¶36

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

¶37

Arunraj @ Arunkumar v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arunraj @ Arunkumar 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

Patchamal Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

N.Panchavarnam Vs the Joint Director

S.Maharajan Vs The District Collector

Loorthumani Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Imam Hussain Vs the Govt of Tamil Nadu

Muthiah Vs the Asst Director