Guru v. State Rep. by
Case brief
What is this about?
This court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as infructuous because the respondent prosecutor submitted that the petitioner had already been arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
What did the court decide?
Petition dismissed as infructuous because the petitioner was already arrested and in judicial custody.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Wednesday, the Seventeenth day of March Two Thousand Twenty One
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice V. BHARATHIDASAN
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.18222 of 2020
GURU [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]
STATE REP. BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH TEAM 1, CHENNAI DISTRICT, (CRIME NO.187 OF 2020).
For Petitioner : M/S. C.ARIVAZHAGAN Advocate
For Respondent : M/S.S.KARTHIKEYAN, Additional Public Prosecutor
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, in Crime No.187 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be heard when the petitioner has already been arrested and is in judicial custody.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
GURU
- respondent
STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH TEAM 1, CHENNAI DISTRICT
Coram
V. BHARATHIDASAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court