Disposed

A.Sayath M/a 29 Years v. the State by Its

Madras HC21 Jun 2022CRL OP/27608/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., apprehending arrest for alleged Section 498(A) IPC offences. Court directed police to complete pending enquiry within two weeks and prohibited coercive steps pending enquiry completion.

What did the court decide?

Police directed to complete enquiry in two weeks; accused protected from coercive steps during enquiry.

A.Sayath M/a 29 Years Vs the State by Its — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Twenty First day of June Two Thousand Twenty Two

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.27608 of 2016

¶7

1 A.SAYATH [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ]

2 ALAUDEEN

3 AFROSE BEGUM

4 LUPNA

THE STATE BY ITS [ RESPONDENT ]

¶13

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE W-17 ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PERAVALLUR, CHENNAI-600 082 CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2016.

¶14

For Petitioners : M/S.P.PALANINATHAN Advocate

¶15

For Respondent : MR.A.DAMODARAN, Additional public Prosecutor

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 498(A) of I.P.C in Crime No. Not known of 2016, seek anticipatory bail.

¶19

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the petition enquiry is pending against the petitioners.

¶20

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent police is harassing the petitioners under the guise of enquiry.

¶21

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

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances, the respondent police is directed to conduct enquiry and if any prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, register the F.I.R or close the petition enquiry within a period of two weeks from today. The parties are directed to cooperate with the enquiry. It is needless to say that the respondent police shall not take any coercive steps to secure the accused till the completion of enquiry on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant.

¶23

With the above directions, this criminal original petition is disposed of.

¶24

-sd/-

¶25

21/06/2022

¶26

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

¶27

TRUE COPY

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, W-17, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PERAVALLUR, CHENNAI-600 082

¶31

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶32

CC to M/S.P.PALANINATHAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶33

JPA 30/06/2022

¶34

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

A.Sayath M/a 29 Years v. the State by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Sayath M/a 29 Years v. the State by Its

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

Sarath Kumar @ Sarath Babu Vs the State Rep.by

Suresh Kumar Herralal Vs M/S.Larsen and Toubro Limited

Priyadarshini Vs State Rep.by

M.Alagusamy Vs State Rep. by

Vijayakumar Vs State Rep by

Arindam Lahiri ( A-2) Vs the Sub Inspector of Police