Allowed

Tae Hyup Kim v. State Rep by

Madras HC8 Feb 2021CRL OP/1856/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with offences under IPC Sections 464, 465, 406, and 120(b). The Court directed the police to complete the pending enquiry within four weeks, arresting the petitioner only if a prima facie case is established; otherwise, the case should be closed.

What did the court decide?

Police directed to complete enquiry within four weeks and register FIR only if prima facie case is made; petitioner not to be arrested in the interim.

Tae Hyup Kim Vs State Rep by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Monday, the Eighth day of February Two Thousand Twenty One

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.1856 of 2021

¶6

TAE HYUP KIM [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs

¶7

STATE REP BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH,KANCHEEPURAM DIST. [ RESPONDENT /COMPLAINANT]

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.V.VISWANATHAN Advocate

¶9

For Respondent : MR.S.KARTHIKEYAN.{ADDL PUBLIC PROSECCUTOR}

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 464, 465, 406 and 120(b) IPC, in Crime No.Not known of 2020, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police.

¶14

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police submitted that petition enquiry is pending against the petitioner in C.No.K2/765/17541/2020.

¶15

In view of the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the respondent Police is directed to complete the enquiry, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in the enquiry, if a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, the respondent police shall register the

¶16

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

¶17

First Information Report, otherwise close the petition. Till then, the respondent police is directed not to arrest the petitioner.

¶18

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

¶19

-sd/08/02/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶20

TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH,
KANCHEEPURAM DIST.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
+1 CC to M/S.V.VISWANATHAN Advocate on payment of necessary
charges.SR.NO.1307.
CRL OP.1856/2021
Date :08/02/2021
KSM 22/02/2021

¶21

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

Tae Hyup Kim v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tae Hyup Kim v. State Rep by

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

Prasanna Vs State by

Subasri Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Karthickeyan Vs State Rep. by

Suresh Vs State Rep.by Its

Ranjithkumar Vs State Rep by

M.Sarfudeen Vs State by