Dismissed

Manju @ Manja @ Manjunath, v. State Rep. by Deputy Commissio

Madras HC6 Oct 2016CRL OP/22653/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Original Petition sought to modify bail conditions by replacing a property surety clause due to the petitioner's financial inability. The High Court dismissed the plea, citing the petitioner's dangerous antecedents including involvement in inter-country trafficking and other dacoity cases, deeming the matter unfit for modification.

What did the court decide?

The petition to modify bail conditions was dismissed; the petitioner must comply with the existing bond terms.

Manju @ Manja @ Manjunath, Vs State Rep. by Deputy… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.10.2016

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶6

Crl.O.P. No.22653 of 2016

¶7

Manju @ Manja @ Manjunath

¶8

Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

State rep by Deputy Commissioner of Police Egmore, A.T.C., C.B.C.I.D. Chennai 08

¶11

Respondent

¶12

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to modify the condition imposed in order dated 04.08.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.1728 of 2016 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate No.4, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶13

For petitioner Mr.B.Abdul Samath For respondent Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This petition has been filed to modify the condition imposed in order

¶16

dated 04.08.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.1728 of 2016 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate No.4, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶18

It is seen that this petitioner was granted bail in CMP No.1728 of 2016 in C.C.No.5980 of 2014 on 04.08.2016 by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, on condition that he should furnish a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties, of whom one surety should be a close relative. This petition has been

gms

P.N. PRAKASH, J.

filed to modify the aforesaid condition on the ground that the petitioner's mother does not have properties worth Rs.25,000/-.

¶23

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a case of inter-country trafficking of women and that this petitioner is also involved in three other dacoity cases in Bangalore.

¶24

Taking into consideration the antecedents of the petitioner and other facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to modify the condition that has been imposed by the trial Court.

¶25

In the result, this petition is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial in C.C.No.5980 of 2015.

06.10.2016

gms

1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police Egmore, A.T.C., C.B.C.I.D., Chennai 08.

¶30

2.The Metropolitan Magistrate No.4, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶31

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶32

Crl.O.P. No.22653 of 2016

Manju @ Manja @ Manjunath, v. State Rep. by Deputy Commissio

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju @ Manja @ Manjunath, v. State Rep. by Deputy Commissio

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

Kumar @ Pullikumar Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Ramesh M/a 38 Years Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Ramesh Vs the Assistant Registrar of

R.Vellaiyan, S/o.Raman, Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

Mrs.D.Pavai, Vs The Superintendent of Police

N.Gowri, Vs The Inspector of Police