Allowed
G. Brindha, v. State Rep by
Madras HCCRL OP/13451/2024
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
Criminal Original Petition for anticipatory bail in a Section 420 IPC case involving missing jewels. Court granted anticipatory bail, extending the time to comply with conditions by one month.
What did the court decide?
Anticipatory bail granted; interim bail made absolute; one month time extended to comply with conditions.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
Crl. O.P. No.13451 of 2024
¶2
Crl. O.P. No.13451 of 2024
¶3
P. DHANABAL.J.,
¶4
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC, in Crime No.23 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
¶5
- The case of prosecution is that the 3rd petitioner herein was in love with the daughter of the defacto complainant and from the month of November 2023 she started handing over the jewels belonging to the defacto complainant to the 3rd petitioner as he asked her to help him financially for the treatment of his father. When the defacto complainant came to know that the jewels were missing, his daughter told him that she had given to the 3rd petitioner. Hence the complaint.
¶6
- The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He also submitted that due to some financial conditions, the petitioners are unable to comply with the conditions within a time. Therefore, he seeks time to comply with the conditions.
¶7
- The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the 3rd petitioner has received necklace, bracelet, earings, ring and chains from the defacto complainant's daughter.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- other
P. DHANABAL
- petitioner
3rd petitioner
- other
Intervener
Coram
AI extract
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court