Allowed

Sekar v. Marimuthu

Madras HC29 Sept 2021CRL OP/32667/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras cancelled anticipatory bail granted in a prior criminal original petition. The court held that the respondents failed to comply with the conditions imposed during the grant of bail, leading to the cancellation of the bail and direction to issue summons.

What did the court decide?

Cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in Crl.O.P.No.27063 of 2019; direction to issue summons to the accused.

Sekar Vs Marimuthu — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 29.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.32667 of 2019

¶6

Sekar ...Petitioner/defacto complainant

Vs.

1.Marimuthu

2.Thirupathi

3.Dharman

4.Appun @ Sathish Kumar

¶12

5.Selvam

¶13

6.Mashdhan @ Elayaraja

¶14

7.Thirunanan

¶15

8.Kumaresan @ Gowtham

¶16

9.Sathya 10.Sudha

¶17

11.Rabin @ Vetri 12.Babu

13.Madan

14.Egambaram

15.Chellan

16.Dinesh

17.Annadurai ...Respondents 1 to 17/Petitioners

¶23

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

¶24

The State

¶25

Rep. by Inspector of Police, F-5, Pathirvedu Police Station, Thiruvallur District. (Crime No.251 of 2019) ...Respondent

¶26

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in Crl.O.P.No.27063 of 2019, by order, dated 14.10.2019 to the respondents 1 to 17.

¶27

For Petitioner .. No Appearance For R1 to R17 .. Mrs.G.Gayathri For R18 .. Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This Court had, by order, dated 14.10.2019 in Crl.O.P.No.27063 of 2019, granted anticipatory bail to the respondents herein, with the normal conditions on production of sureties and appearing before the first respondent Police Station at 10.30 A.M, for a period of one week and thereafter, as and when required.

¶30

None of the respondents complied with the said conditions. This has led to the defacto complainant in filing the present petition, seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail.

¶31

Subsequent to the investigation of the allegations in the F.I.R, the investigating officer had filed a final report, which had been taken cognizance as C.C.No.21 of 2021, which is now pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipundi.

¶32

Since the respondents 1 to 17 herein had not complied with the conditions, the anticipatory bail granted is cancelled and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipundi is directed to issue summons, which, I am confident, would be issued in normal course to the respondents/accused and let the learned Judicial Magistrate decide about the course of action to be taken on appearance of the accused, when they answer the summons.

¶33

With the above said observation, the present Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the anticipatory bail, granted

¶34

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

¶35

in Crl.O.P.No.27063 of 2019, by order, dated 14.10.2019, against the respondents 1 to 17 herein, is cancelled.

¶36

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy//

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

grs

¶39

¶40

The Judicial Magistrate, Gummidipundi. 2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur District.

¶41

The Inspector of Police, F-5, Pathirvedu Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

¶42

Crl.O.P.No.32667 of 2019 BS[co] NSK 12/10/2021

¶43

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

Sekar v. Marimuthu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sekar v. Marimuthu

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

C.Perumal Vs v.S.Manian

Jayaprakash Babu Kodimi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.

Rajasekaran Vs the State by the

Sudha Vs State by

Niamadullah Vs the Inspector of Police

Malliga, F/45 Years Vs State Rep. by