Dismissed

K.Saravanan v. the State Rep by

Madras HC28 Jan 2022CRL OP/1377/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a criminal original petition seeking anticipatory bail. The petitioner apprehended arrest for alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 324, and 506(ii) IPC. The court rejected the plea citing the gravity of the offence and the fact that an earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by this very court without any change of circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed; petitioner is not entitled to bail.

K.Saravanan Vs the State Rep by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Twenty Eighth day of January Two Thousand Twenty Two

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.1377 of 2022

¶7

K.SARAVANAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

THE STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SRIMUSHNAM POLICE STATION, CUDDALORE DISTRICT

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.U.GOWRISHANKAR Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.S.BALAJI, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.420 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant brother is working in abroad. A2 is the wife of the defacto complainant's brother. She had illegal intimacy with A1 and the same was objected by the defacto complainant. Thereafter, A1 and A2 joined together and attacked the defacto complainant with Aruval. Due to which, the defacto complainant sustained severe injuries. Based on the complaint, the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner.

¶16

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶17

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner. He further submits that earlier, this Court had dismissed anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.19742 of 2021 and this is the second bail petition. Hence,

¶18

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

¶19

he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

Considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner and that the earlier anticipatory bail petition was dismissed by this Court and there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

¶22

-sd/-

¶23

28/01/2022

¶24

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶25

TRUE COPY

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶27

¶28

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SRIMUSHNAM POLICE STATION, CUDDALORE DISTRICT

¶29

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶30

CC to M/S.U.GOWRISHANKAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶31

RVR 11/02/2022

¶32

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

K.Saravanan v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Saravanan v. the State Rep by

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

V.Pavithra Vs The Registrar

Prabhu Vs The Inspector of Police

Mohamed Basheer Vs The Passport officer

Pl Annamalai Vs District Collector

Gowri Vs The District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)

R.Janani Vs The Deputy Director