Disposed

D.Vadivel Mugundhan v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC14 Jun 2021CRL OP/129/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The High Court held that due to an existing interim stay in a related writ petition, there was no apprehension of arrest, so the petition was closed and liberty was granted to work out remedy.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed, liberty granted to work out remedy in lower court; interim stay extended till disposal of related writ petition.

D.Vadivel Mugundhan Vs the Superintendent of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Monday, the Fourteenth day of June Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.129 of 2021

¶7

D.VADIVEL MUGUNDHAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [ RESPONDENT ] CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, III FLOOR, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NO.26, HADDOWS ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 006.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.V.KARTHIKEYAN, Senior Counsel, for

¶11

M/S.N.DAMODARAN, Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : MR.K.SRINIVASAN, Special Public Prosecutor for

¶13

CBI-cases

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 409 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Crime No.RC MA 0322020A0023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this petitioner has filed anticipatory bail petition before this Court and during the pendency of the case, some other accused in the FIR has filed a quash petition as against the FIR registered by the respondent police. This Court, vide order dated 02.02.2021 in W.P.Nos.2007 and 2031 of 2021, granted interim stay on investigation. Hence, he seeks to grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

The learned Government Advocate submitted that this Court has already granted interim stay in W.P.Nos.2007 & 2031 of 2021 dated 02.02.2021. Hence, nothing survives for adjudication in this case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

In view of the above, this Court already granted interim stay and there is no apprehension for arrest. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is closed and liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. In the meantime, the interim order already granted by this Court is extended till the disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶20

-sd/-

¶21

14/06/2021

¶22

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶23

TRUE COPY

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO

¶25

1 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, III FLOOR, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NO.26, HADDOWS ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 006.

¶26

2 THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI CASES, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶27

CC to M/S. N.DAMODARAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges

CRL OP.129/2021

Date :14/06/2021

TA-16/07/2021

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

D.Vadivel Mugundhan v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Vadivel Mugundhan v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.N.Rajarajan Vs S.Karthikeyan

Shanmuga Sundaram Vs the Inspector of Police

Madhan Vs State Rep.by

Pratheepraj Vs Inspector of Police

Bharathraj Vs Inspector of Police

Arumugam Vs State Rep by