Partly allowed

Karthik v. State Rep. by

Madras HC4 Aug 2015CRL OP/19508/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court modified bail conditions in a criminal matter, directing the petitioners to report at Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri instead of their previous designated locations, facilitating their attendance at another court session.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to report before Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri daily at 10.30 a.m.; previous stay conditions modified.

Karthik Vs State Rep. by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 04.08.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

CRL.O.P. No.19508 of 2015

¶6

Karthik

¶7

Shanmugam @ Shanmugasundaram ...Petitioners

¶8

Versus State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sholavaram Police Station, Tiruvallur District. Crime No.375/2015 ...Respondent

¶9

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to modify the condition imposed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, in Crl.M.P.No.1731 of 2015, dated 13.07.2015.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.S.L.Venkatesan For Respondent : Mr.C.Ayyapparaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R

¶11

This petition has been filed for modification of the condition imposed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, in Crl.M.P.No.1731 of 2015, dated 13.07.2015.

¶12

The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners imposed the condition that the first petitioner shall stay at Madurai and report before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and the second petitioner shall stay at Cuddalore and report before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore, daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the petitioners have to attend the IV Additional Sessions Court at Chennai on all hearing dates in connection with another case, they are not able to comply the condition imposed in the bail order and hence sought for modification of the said condition.

¶15

Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the condition imposed on the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.1731 of 2015, dated 13.07.2015 is modified to the effect that the petitioners are directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders and the Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vrc
To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Thiruvallur.

¶17

The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri. 3. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.

¶18

-Do- Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.

¶19

The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore. 6. -Do- The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur.

¶22

The Inspector of Police, Sholavaram Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

¶23

9.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai – 600 104.

¶24

CRL.O.P. No.15703 of 2009

¶25

GJ (CO) PSI (14.08.2015)

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Karthik v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthik v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pom. Arumugam, Vs the Secretary

R. Ravindran Vs the Secretary

U.Subramanian Vs the Managing Director

Tvl. Zaitoon Multi Cuisine Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/S.Adani Enterprises Ltd., Vs Union of India

M/s.Mobis India Limited, Vs Deputy Commissioner of