Hemamathabai v. Bharatha

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Eleventh day of July Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL MP(MD) No.863 of 2016 IN CRL OP(MD) No.499 of 2016 HEMAMATHABAI ... PETITIONER Vs 1 BHARATHA 2 NARENDRA KUMAR ... RESPONDENTS/2nd and 3rd ACCUSED 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THADIKOMBU POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to pass an order of direction to cancel the Anticipatory Bail granted to the 1st and 2nd respondents by this Honourable Court in Crl.O.P.No. 499/2016 dated 11.1.2016 Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S R.

RAMASAMY, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.P.KANNITHEVAN, Government Advocate (Crl.side) on behalf of the 3rd Respondent, the court made the following order:- This petition has been filed by the petitioner to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by this Court to the respondents 1 and 2, vide order dated 11.01.2016, made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.499 of 2016.

2. According to the petitioner, after granting anticipatory bail, on 16.01.2016 when the petitioner was returning to home after attending the Court proceedings, the respondents 1 and 2 along with their men attacked the petitioner. Therefore, she gave a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station and the same was registered in Crime No.45 of 2016. Further, the respondents 1 and 2 have violated the conditions imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 have not committed any offence as alleged by the petitioner and on that day, they were not in Madurai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that after enquiry, the complaint of the petitioner viz., Crime No.45 of 2016 was closed as mistake of fact and RCS notice was served on the petitioner.

5. Considering the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) that the complaint of the petitioner was closed as mistake of fact and RCS notice was served on the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 have not violated the conditions imposed by this Court, this petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail, is dismissed.

sd/- 11/07/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, DINDIGUL

2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THADIKOMBU POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL MP(MD) No.863 of 2016 IN CRL OP(MD) No.499 of 2016 Date :11/07/2016 SMN2 TE/AAL-MPA/SAR-I : 15/07/2016 : 2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/