Disposed

A.Mohamed Irfan v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC3 Jun 2021CRL OP/9821/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court found the petitioner was an absconding accused due to probable clerical errors in the FIR and directed him to appear on the hearing date to recall the non-bailable warrant. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to appear on 05.07.2021 to apply for recall of warrant; Criminal Original Petition disposed of.

A.Mohamed Irfan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.06.2021

¶3

CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTIC E R.SUBRAMANIAN Crl.O.P.No.9821 of 2021

A.Mohamed Irfan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Porayar Police Station, Nagapattinam.

¶8

(F.I.R.No.143 of 2012) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner/accused-9 on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in C.C.No.66 of 2017, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate – II, Mayiladuthurai.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel for Mrs.P.Brindha

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448, 354, 436, 352, 427, 379, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code in C.C.No.66 of 2017, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶12

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the petitioner is absconding accused and the case was split-up. It is also pointed out that the other accused have been acquitted. He would further submit that the case has now been transferred to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tharangambadi and re-numbered as C.C.No.74 of 2019. The same is posted for hearing on 05.07.2021. It is also stated that the non-bailable warrant is pending against the petitioner.

¶13

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

¶14

Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the absence of the petitioner is neither wilful nor wanton and the petitioner was un-aware of the pendency of the case as his name was improperly described in the First Information Report. He would further submit that the petitioner would appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tharangambadi on any day fixed by this Court.

¶15

Considering the statement made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tharangambadi on 05.07.2021 viz., the date on which the case is posted for hearing and apply for recalling of the warrant. If such application is filed, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tharangambadi shall consider the application and dispose of the same on the same day.

¶16

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. -sd/03/06/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THARANGAMBADI. 2 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, MAYILADUTHURAI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PORAYAR POLICE STATION, NAGAPATTINAM. 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. CC to M/S.P.BRINDHA Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.9821/2021

¶17

Date :03/06/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MK:30/06/2021

A.Mohamed Irfan v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Mohamed Irfan v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nazeer Ahmed Vs State Rep. by

Hari Gopalakrishnan Nadar Vs State of Karnataka Rep.by

S.Ravichanadiran Vs State Rep. by Its

Kepl Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs Glory Industrial Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

M/S.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Rep.by Its Senior Manager-Legal (South) Vs M/S.a.T.M.Constructions (P)Ltd., Represented by Its Director, Mr.Faiz Mohammed

Vimalraj Vs the Inspector of Police