Disposed

M. Arumugam v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Nov 2021CRL OP(MD)/14396/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court closed the petition based on the respondent prosecutor's submission that the de facto complainant was declared a witness in a pending case and no further action was required.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was ordered closed based on the submission that the complainant is a witness in a pending case.

M. Arumugam Vs The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.14396 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23/11/2021 PRESENT

¶3

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.MURALI SHANKAR CRL OP(MD). No.14396 of 2021

¶4

M.Arumugam

¶5

A.Balaji

¶6

A.Santhiya ... Petitioners/Accused

¶7

Rank not known

¶8

¶9

The state represented by The Inspector of Police,

¶10

Bodinayakanur Police Station, Theni District.

¶11

Cr.No.Not known of 2021.

¶12

The Inspector of Police,

¶13

District Crime Branch, Theni,

¶14

Theni District.. ... Respondents/Complainants

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.Sulthan Basha.J, Advocate

¶16

for M/s.Ajmal Associates,

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman,

¶18

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

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

¶20

PRAYER :-

¶21

For Anticipatory bail in Crime.No.Not known of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police

¶22

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶23

Today (i.e., 23.11.2021), when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the defacto complainant has appeared before the respondent police and informed that since the connected case in Crime No.10 of 2020 is pending, he may be also included as one of the witness in the said case and that no further action is necessary in respect of his complaint and on that basis, the petition was ordered to be closed and he has also filed a report https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the respondent Police.

¶24

1/2

¶25

CRL OP(MD). No.14396 of 2021

¶26

2.Recording the said submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Criminal Original Petition is closed. sd/-

¶27

23/11/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶28

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶29

¶30

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE BODINAYAKANUR POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT.

¶31

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THENI, THENI DISTRICT.

¶32

3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶33

+1. CC to M/S. AJMAL ASSOCIATES Advocate SR.No.35711

¶34

das

¶35

SS/JC/SAR-III/29.11.2021 : 2P/5C

¶36

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

¶37

2/2

M. Arumugam v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Arumugam v. The Inspector of Police

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

Vimala Vs The Inspector of Police

R.Rajasekaran Vs The Inspector of Police

Sarath Kumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Murugesan, S/O.Arasan, Vs Ramasamy, S/O.Iyyavu

Ajith Kumar Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Murugesan, Vs S.Kavitha