S.Surya v. the State
Case brief
What is this about?
This order dismisses a petition for anticipatory bail solely on the procedural ground that the application referenced obsolete charges that were later added in the police case. Liberty was granted to file a fresh petition.
What did the court decide?
liberty to file a fresh petition with corrected provisions.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Monday, the Eighth day of March Two Thousand Twenty One
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.4207 of 2021
S.SURYA [PETITIONER/ACCUSED]
Vs
STATE REPRESENTED BY [RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHEMMANCHERY POLICE STATION, CHENGALPATTU CR.NO.684 OF 2020.
For Petitioner : M/S.D.DEVENDRAN Advocate
For Respondent : M/S.C.Iyyappa Raj, Additional Public Prosecutor
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
When the matter is taken up to today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that originally the case was registered in Crime No.684 of 2020 for offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC and later, it has been altered to offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 336, 324, 506(ii) and 307 IPC, whereas, only the earlier provisions of offences have been stated in the application. He would further submit that though the injured had suffered grivious injuries, later he has been discharged from the hsopital.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
S.Surya
- respondent
State Represented by Inspector of Police
Coram
A.D.Jagadish Chandra
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court