M.Kavitha v. Karpagam
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner, a defacto complainant, sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to her sister, the accused, alleging improper case scheme and non-recovery of jewels. The Court found no grounds to cancel the bail.
What did the court decide?
Application to cancel anticipatory bail was dismissed.
What the court decided
CRL MP(MD)No.1260 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Date : 29.09.2021 PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI
CRL MP(MD)No.1260 of 2021 in CRL OP(MD)No.10802 of 2020
M.Kavitha ... Petitioner/Defacto Complainant Vs
1.Karpagam
2.The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Subramaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.1321/2020) ... Respondents/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.T.SUGADEV, Advocate
For Respondent 2 : Mr.T.SENTHILKUMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor
PETITION Under Sec.439(2) of Cr.P.C
PRAYER :-
For Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.1321 of 2020 on the file of the respondent Police.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the accused should be cancelled based on a civil dispute and non-recovery of jewels?
Whether the scheme of the case with alleged omission of offence under Section 392 IPC warrants cancellation of bail?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M.Kavitha
- respondent
Karpagam
- respondent
The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Subramaniyapuram Police Station
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court