Dismissed

R.Pandian v. Palaraman @ Mokkan

Madras HC8 Aug 2016CRL MP(MD)/4568/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a petition filed by the defacto complainant seeking cancellation of bail granted to an accused person. The petition relied on the accused's failure to appear earlier, but the court, noting recent compliance with reporting conditions, dismissed the request.

What did the court decide?

The petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed, and the bail conditions remained operative.

R.Pandian Vs Palaraman @ Mokkan — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Monday, the Eighth day of August Two Thousand Sixteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL MP(MD) No.4568 of 2016 IN CRL OP(MD) No.4588 of 2016

¶5

R.PANDIAN ... PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Vs

¶6

1 PALARAMAN @ MOKKAN ... 1ST RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.1 STATE REP.BY 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE USILAMPATTI TALUK POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.41/2016 ... 2ND RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶7

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to cancel the bail order issued by this Honourable Court in Cr.No.41 of 2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent in Crl.O.P.No.4588 of 2016 dated 16.3.2016.

¶8

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S K.SIVABALAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate (Crl.side) on behalf of the second Respondent and M/S.M.KARUNANITHI, Advocate for R1 the court made the following order:-

¶9

The petitioner/defacto complainant has filed this petition seeking for cancellation of bail granted by this Court in Crl.O.P (MD)No.4588 of 2016, dated 16.03.2016.

¶10

2.The first respondent/Accused No.1 is charged for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC in Crime No.41 of 2016.

¶11

3.The first respondent/Accused No.1 filed Crl.O.P(MD)No.4588 of 2016 for bail and this Court by an order, dated 16.03.2016, enlarged the first respondent on bail by imposing one of the conditions among other conditions that he should stay at Gujilamparai and report before the Gujilamparai Police Station morning at 10.30 a.m., and evening at 05.30 p.m., until further orders. Subsequently, the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent/Accused No.1 filed Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.2752 and 2753 of 2016, to relax the condition imposed on him and this Court, by an order,

¶12

dated 01.04.2016, modified the condition to the effect that the petitioner shall report before the Gujilamparai Police Station daily at 06.30 p.m., until further orders. The first respondent/Accused No.1 did not appear before the concerned Court and comply with the condition imposed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition.

¶13

4.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/Accused No.1 submitted that due to illness, the first respondent/Accused No.1 did not appear before the concerned Court and subsequently, he appeared before the Gujilamparai Police Station.

¶14

5.When the matter came up for hearing on 27.07.2016, this Court directed the first respondent/Accused No.1 to appear before the Gujilamparai Police Station for a period of one week.

¶15

6.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the first respondent/Accused No.1 is abiding with the condition from 28.07.2016 till today.

¶16

7.Considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), this petition is dismissed.

sd/-

08/08/2016

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶21

¶22

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, USILAMPATTI.

¶23

2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶24

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE USILAMPATTI TALUK POLICE STATION,MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶25

4 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, GUJILIAMPARAI POLICE STATION,GUJILIAMPARAI.

¶26

5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶27

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.

¶28

+1. C.C. to M/S M.KARUNANITHI, Advocate SR.No.39685 ORDER

¶29

¶30

CRL MP(MD) No.4568 of 2016

¶31

¶32

CRL OP(MD) No.4588 of 2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Date :08/08/2016 CSL/NGM-MP/SAR-III/12.08.2016: 2P/7C

R.Pandian v. Palaraman @ Mokkan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Pandian v. Palaraman @ Mokkan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muthaiah, Vs the Inspector of Police

Chandraskar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Dr. M. Natarajan Vs the Insepector of Police

S.Jegatheesh Vs the Inspector of Police

Perumal @ Mahalingam Vs the Inspector of Police

Narayanan Vs S. Manuvel Jeyaraj