Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Jul 06, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1189982

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1189982
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: The Honourable Ms. Justice V.M. Velumani
Decided On: Jul 06, 2016
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 10591 of 2016
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Petitioner

Respondent

Excerpt

1. the petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for an alleged offence punishable under sections 120(b), 420, 406, 294(b) and 506(i) of ipc in crime no.75 of 2016, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. the case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is running orphanages and old age homes at kanyakumari district. the petitioner and other accused persons promised to get sanction from the government and received a sum of rs.14,50,000/-. but subsequently, they did not get any amount from the government and swindled money received from the de-facto complainant. when the same was demanded by the de-facto complainant, they threatened with dire consequences and complaint case has been registered. 3. when the matter was listed on 29.06.2016, there was no representation for the petitioner and the matter adjourned today. today also, there is no representation for the petitioner. 4. the learned government advocate (crl.side) submitted that the petitioner received a sum of rs.14,50,000/- from the de-facto complainant and promised to get amount from the government for conducting the orphanages and old age homes and the investigation of the case is pending to find out the involvement of the petitioner. 5. considering the serious nature of allegation made against the petitioner, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for an alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 406, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.75 of 2016, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is running orphanages and old age homes at Kanyakumari District. The petitioner and other accused persons promised to get sanction from the Government and received a sum of Rs.14,50,000/-. But subsequently, they did not get any amount from the Government and swindled money received from the de-facto complainant. When the same was demanded by the de-facto complainant, they threatened with dire consequences and complaint case has been registered.

3. When the matter was listed on 29.06.2016, there was no representation for the petitioner and the matter adjourned today. Today also, there is no representation for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- from the de-facto complainant and promised to get amount from the Government for conducting the orphanages and old age homes and the investigation of the case is pending to find out the involvement of the petitioner.

5. Considering the serious nature of allegation made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties Petitioner vs Respondent Same Subject Criminal Same Judge The Honourable Ms. Justice V.M. Velumani

Criminal Accused person Has been