Defacto complainant sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to two accused. Government Advocate reported that the accused appeared after notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. and are co-operating with investigation. Petitions dismissed as infructuous with a direction to co-operate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.M.P.Nos.797 & 799 of 2023
Crl.M.P.Nos.797 & 799 of 2023 in Crl.O.P.Nos.23917 & 11075 of 2022
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
These Criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed by the petitioner/defacto complainant to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to 1st and 2nd respondents by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2022 & 12.05.2022 in Crl.O.P.Nos.23917 of 2022 and 11075 of 2022 respectively.
Advocate (Crl.Side) that the respondents 1 & 2 appeared before the 3rd respondent Police and they are co-operating for investigation, the relief sought in these miscellaneous petitions has become infructuous.
1/2
Crl.M.P.Nos.797 & 799 of 2023
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
dpa
dismissed as infructuous. The 1st and 2nd respondents are directed to co-
operate for the investigation without fail.
26.07.2024
Crl.M.P.Nos.797 & 799 of 2023 in Crl.O.P.Nos.23917 & 11075 of 2022
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail granted to respondents 1 and 2 should be cancelled.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.V. Thamilselvi (petitioner/defacto complainant)
1st respondent
2nd respondent
3rd respondent Police
T.V.Thamilselvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
