Allowed

R.Vignmesh, M/22 Years, A-22 v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC6 Nov 2017CRL MP/13469/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court modified an anticipatory bail condition requiring sureties to be blood relatives. Recognizing the petitioners lack of siblings, the Court substituted the wife of each petitioner as the required surety and extended the time to furnish sureties.

What did the court decide?

Deleted condition requiring blood relative surety; substituted wife as surety; extended two weeks time for furnishing sureties.

R.Vignmesh, M/22 Years, A-22 Vs the State Rep.by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Monday, the Sixth day of November Two Thousand Seventeen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P. N. PRAKASH

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.13469 of 2017

¶7

IN CRL OP.18093/2017

¶8

1 R.VIGNMESH, [ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ] 2 G.ARUMUGHAM, 3 K.THEL @ PADMANABHAN,

¶9

¶10

THE STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALATHI POLICE STATION, CR.NO.256 OF 2016.

¶11

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court will be pleased to pass an order to modify the order of furnishing sureties as to furnish Family Card each with two sureties, instead of executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- to each with two sureties order dated 07.09.2017 in Crl.OP.No.18093 of 2017.

¶12

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.DR.G.KRISHNAMURTHY, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.K.MATHAN, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:-

¶13

It is seen that this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners herein along with the other accused in Crl.O.P.No.18093 of 2017 on 07.09.2017, on certain conditions, one of which is that, the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties, of whom, one should be a blood relative.

¶14

The petitioners have filed the present petition for modification of the condition relating to furnishing of bond by a blood relative, on the ground that they do not have any brother or sister to stand surety. The third petitioner has filed an affidavit in this regard.

¶15

Accepting the aforesaid submission, the condition imposed by this Court with regard to furnishing of bond by a blood relative is deleted and instead, the wife of the respective petitioners shall stand surety. Rest of the conditions shall remain the same.

¶16

Two weeks time is extended for furnishing sureties from the date of receipt of amended copy of the order.

¶17

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered accordingly.

¶18

-sd/-

¶19

06/11/2017

¶20

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶21

TRUE COPY

¶22

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶23

¶24

1 THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VILLUPURAM.

¶25

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶26

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALATHI POLICE STATION,

¶27

+1 C.C. to M/S.DR.G.KRISHNAMURTHY Advocate on payment of necessary charges -Sr.20434

Order

CRL MP.13469/2017

CRL OP.18093/2017

Date :06/11/2017

From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format ths : 13.11.2017

R.Vignmesh, M/22 Years, A-22 v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Vignmesh, M/22 Years, A-22 v. the State Rep.by

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

M.Thirumal, M/Aged About 31YRS Vs S.Viswanathan, M/Aged About

Selvaraj, M/A-59 Years, Vs the State Rep. by

Rajeswari, F/a 54 Years, Vs P.Kumari Anandan, M/a 32 Years

C.Palanisamy Vs K.Ganesan

E.J.Coelho, Christian, Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Chandran Vs Nagarajan