Petitioners sought to modify bail conditions, specifically the deposit amount. The Court held that the lower court's reasoned order requiring a Rs.1,00,000/- deposit had no reason for interference and dismissed the petition.
The petition to modify the bail condition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Monday, the Eighteenth day of April Two Thousand Sixteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.CHOCKALINGAM
CRL MP(MD) No.3173 of 2016 IN CRL.OP(MD)NO.3439 OF 2016
1 ARJUNAN
2 GANESAN 3 RAMESH 4 CHITRA
5 LAKSHMI ... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS
Vs
STATE REPRESENTED BY
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALLAL POLICE STATION,SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.146 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT
Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to modify the condition imposed on the petitioners by this Honourable Court by its order dated 26.02.2016 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 3439 of 2016.
Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.S.MUTHUKUMAR, Advocate for the petitioner and of M/S.P.KANNITHEVAN, the Government Advocate(Crl.Side) on behalf of the Respondent the Court made the following order:-
This petition has been filed to modify the condition imposed on the petitioners by this Court on 26.02.2016 made in Crl.O.P(MD) No.3439 of 2015.
“(i) the petitioners/ accused 1 to 5 shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the credit of Crime No.46 of 2015, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.
(ii) the petitioners/accused 1 to 5 shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.
(iii) the petitioners/ accused 1 to 5 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iv) the petitioners/ accused 1 to 5 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
(v) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners/ accused 1 to 5 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners/ accused 1 to 5 released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.KJ.Shaji vs. State of Keral [(2005) AIR SCW 5560] .
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO
1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARAIKUDI,SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT
2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT
3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI
4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAL POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.
RL/5C/2P/SKS/RR/ARI/22/4/2016
ORDER
IN
CRL MP(MD) No.3173 of 2016 IN CRL.OP(MD)NO.3439 OF 2016 Date :18/04/2016
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the condition imposed on petitioners requiring them to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- should be modified based on the petitioner's claim that they have returned Rs.75,000/- to the complainant.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's reasoned order imposing bail conditions in a criminal case.
Whether a bail petitioner can claim money returned to a de-facto complainant to reduce the bail deposit amount.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.KJ.Shaji vs. State of KeralReferred¶20
P.KJ.Shaji vs. State of Keral [(2005) AIR SCW 5560] · Who else cites this
ARJUNAN
GANESAN
RAMESH
CHITRA
LAKSHMI
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALLAL POLICE STATION
G. CHOCKALINGAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
