Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

0% found this document useful (0 votes)
75 views3 pages

Reasoning 1

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail that was previously granted to Vijayakumar, the 6th accused in a criminal case. The Court found that anticipatory bail was wrongly granted as the investigation was already completed, charges were filed in 2016, and a lookout notice was issued against Vijayakumar in 2018, making him ineligible for anticipatory bail. The Court allowed the petition filed by the de facto complainant seeking cancellation of Vijayakumar's anticipatory bail.

Uploaded by

sakshi baadkar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
75 views3 pages

Reasoning 1

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail that was previously granted to Vijayakumar, the 6th accused in a criminal case. The Court found that anticipatory bail was wrongly granted as the investigation was already completed, charges were filed in 2016, and a lookout notice was issued against Vijayakumar in 2018, making him ineligible for anticipatory bail. The Court allowed the petition filed by the de facto complainant seeking cancellation of Vijayakumar's anticipatory bail.

Uploaded by

sakshi baadkar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

LatestLaws.

com
1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT


( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Thursday, the Twenty Sixth day of July Two Thousand Eighteen

PRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN

CRL MP(MD) No.5862 of 2018


IN
CRL OP(MD) No.8155 of 2018

T.MEENAKUMARI ... PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

Vs

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,


KENIKKARAI POLICE STATION,
RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
IN CR NO. 318 OF 2015 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
2 VIJAYAKUMAR ... RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/
ACCUSED No.6

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein


and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased
to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the 2nd respondent by
this Honourable Court in Crl.OP(MD)NO. 8155/2018 dated 16.05.2018

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the


petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of
MR.S.MANICKAM, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.A.ROBINSON,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)on behalf of the 1st Respondent, and
MR.P.ANDIRAJ, Advocate for 2nd Respondent, the court made the
following order:-

The petitioner in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is the


de facto complainant in Crime No.318 of 2015 for the offences under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 @ 120 (b), 109 and 302 I.P.C. on the
file of the Inspector of Police, Kenikkarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.

2.The respondent herein viz., Vijayakumar, son of Sundarajan,


was shown as the sixth accused in the said case. He filed Crl.O.P.
(MD).No.8155 of 2018, before this Court and this Court had granted
anticipatory bail on 16.05.2018. Before this Court, a representation
was made that the investigation was still going on and this Court
http://www.judis.nic.in
had granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
LatestLaws.com
2

3.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned
Government counsel (Crl. side) submitted that final report was filed
in this case on 07.07.2016 and the case has been taken up by the
Committal Court in P.R.C.No.32 of 2016. It is also submitted that a
look out circular has been issued against Vijayakumar / petitioner
on 10.04.2018. The person against whom look out circular has been
issued is obviously not entitled to seek the relief of anticipatory
bail.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted


that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2014) 1
MLJ (Crl) 89 (SC)-(State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma) held
that a person who has been declared as absconder is not entitled to
anticipatory bail. The very same reasoning will apply in the
present case also.

5.Therefore, it is thus seen that the grant of anticipatory


bail in favour of Vijayakumar was vitiated as these relevant facts
which were not taken into account. It is reiterated that a wrong
submission was made by the prosecution that investigation is still
going on. It has now been admitted that this a wrong statement.
Charge sheet was filed as early as on 07.07.2016 and the matter is
pending at P.R.C.No.32 of 2016, on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram. The second circumstance is the
pendency of look out circular against the petitioner that was issued
on 10.04.2018. As already submitted a person against whom look out

circular has been issued cannot invoke the jurisdiction available


under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Since both these aspects were not
brought to the notice of this Court, anticipatory bail granted to
the petitioner by this Court on 16.05.2018 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.8155
of 2018 stands cancelled.

6.This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed accordingly.

sd/-
26/07/2018
/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)


Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai - 625 023.
TO

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II,


RAMNAD, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,


RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT
http://www.judis.nic.in
LatestLaws.com
3

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,


KENIKKARAI POLICE STATION,
RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,
MADURAI.

+1. C.C. to MR.R.ARAVINDRAJ, Advocate SR.No.14270

ORDER IN
CRL MP(MD) No.5862 of 2018
IN
CRL OP(MD) No.8155 of 2018
Date :26/07/2018

PK/RR/SAR-4/03.08.2018 : 3P/6C

http://www.judis.nic.in

You might also like