Saravanan v. State Rep by
Case brief
What is this about?
Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners in opposing Crl.O.P. numbers with specific reporting and bond conditions, while dismissing the application for the first petitioner.
What did the court decide?
Grant of anticipatory bail to two petitioners with conditions including daily police reporting, bond execution, and prohibitions; application dismissed against the first petitioner.
What the court decided
Crl.O.P.Nos.1641 & 6225 of 2024
Crl.O.P.Nos.1641 & 6225 of 2024
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.
The petitioners herein seek anticipatory bail in Crime No.658 of 2023 registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(i) of IPC.
- The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that they have falsely implicated as accused in this case. Apprehending arrest from the respondent police, he seeks bail to the petitioners.
- The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) stated that the defacto complainant is the Manager of a TASMAC shop and he complained that the petitioners demanded mamul for the shop to continue to function in that place.
4.In reply the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the 1st petitioner is the owner of a liquor bar and the 2nd petitioner is the sales men of the liquor bar.
1/5
Crl.O.P.Nos.1641 & 6225 of 2024
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the respective petitioners in the pending criminal proceedings.
What conditions should be imposed upon the grant of bail.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
V. Karthikeyan
- petitioner
Second Petitioner
Coram
C.V. Karthikeyan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court