Arumugam v. State Rep by
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioners filed a Criminal Original Petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. during hearing, their counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition which the Court allowed.
What did the court decide?
Petition dismissed as withdrawn.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 23.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN
Crl.O.P.No.20948 of 2020
- Arumugam
2. Venkatesan
3. Karthik ... Petitioners
Vs.
State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
Veppankuppam Police Station,
Vellore Dt.
(Crime No.1 of 2015) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the
event of their arrest in Crime No.1 of 2015 on the file of respondent
police.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan
For Respondent : Mr. S.Karthikeyan,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(The case has been heard through video conference)
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 174 of Cr.P.C. @ 302 and 201 of I.P.C., in Crime No.1 of 2015, seeks anticipatory bail.
- However, today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw the Criminal Original Petition.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Arumugam
- petitioner
Venkatesan
- petitioner
Karthik
- respondent
State rep. by Inspector of Police, Veppankuppam Police Station, Vellore Dt.
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court