Dismissed

R.Kavitha v. State Rep by Its by

Madras HC17 Aug 2022CRL MP/5985/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to a 2nd respondent in Army service. The court held that the petitioner's allegations of threats and coercion were unproven, noting the respondent appeared personally and the investigation was nearly complete.

What did the court decide?

Petition to cancel anticipatory bail dismissed; 2nd respondent directed to co-operate with trial before the trial court.

R.Kavitha Vs State Rep by Its by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.M.P. No. 5985 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No. 23679 of 2021

¶2

Crl.M.P.No.5985 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.23679 of 2021

¶3

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

¶4

This petition has been filed to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the 2^nd respondent by this Court in Crl.O.P. No.23679 of 2021 dated 09.12.2021 in Crime No.3 of 2013, pending investigation on the file of 1^st respondent police.

¶5

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2^nd respondent instigated his relative and threatened her to withdraw the complaint after getting oral order from this court. Hence, he prayed to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the 2^nd respondent.

¶6

Today, when the matter taken up for hearing, the 2^nd respondent,

¶7

who is working in Army appeared before this Court in person on leave. He openly stated that neither himself nor his family approached the defacto complainant and nor he instigated anybody to threaten her to withdraw the complaint.

¶8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/3

¶9

Crl.M.P.No.5985 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.23679 of 2021

¶10

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for 1^st respondent submitted that the charge sheet was also filed and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.139 of 2022 by the Mahila Court, Vellore and the hearing date was fixed on 01.09.2022.

¶11

Considering the above facts and circumstances and on perusal of records, it is seen that charge sheet was filed and the case was taken on file in C.C. No.139 of 2022 on the file of Mahila Court, Vellore and the investigation was almost completed. Furthermore, there is no proof that the defacto complainant threatened the 2^nd respondent nor she produced any receipt for giving a complaint before the respondent police. Therefore, the reasons stated by the petitioner against the 2^nd respondent is not proved by sufficient evidence for prosecution, on the other hand, the 2^nd respondent appeared in person and he is on duty at Army and the investigation almost completed. The 2^nd respondent also submitted that he would cooperate for the further proceedings. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed and the 2^nd respondent is directed to co-operate with the trial before the trial court.

¶12

17.08.2022

¶13

rpp

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/3

¶15

Crl.M.P.No.5985 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.23679 of 2021

¶16

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶17

rpp

¶18

Crl.M.P. No. 5985 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No. 23679 of 2021

¶19

17.08.2022

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/3

R.Kavitha v. State Rep by Its by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kavitha v. State Rep by Its by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vellaisamy,S/O.Vellaisamy Vs P.Subramanian

M.Palaniyappan (Deceased) Vs Savithri

M.Palaniyappan (Deceased) Vs Savithri

Shalini Vs the Inspector of Police

Govindaraju Vs Valiammai

D..Kalyana Sundaram Vs Inspector of Police