Allowed

Govindaraj, Aged 49 Years v. State Represented by

Madras HC10 Nov 2017CRL MP/14000/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court relaxed the bail condition requiring the petitioner to report daily to the Inspector of Police in Gingee after he began complying. It directed future monthly reporting before a Judicial Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Relaxation of the condition to report daily before Inspector of Police; direction to report before Judicial Magistrate, Vandavasi monthly.

Govindaraj, Aged 49 Years Vs State Represented by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Tenth day of November Two Thousand Seventeen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P. N. PRAKASH

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.14000 of 2017

¶7

IN CRL A.368/2016

¶8

1 GOVINDARAJ, [ PETITIONERS ]

2 PARASURAMAN,

3 MANI,

STATE REPRESENTED BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DESUR POLICE STATION, TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT. CR.NO.53/2002.

¶13

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court will be pleased to relax the conditions imposed on the petitioners in Crl.M.P.No.11388 of 2017 in Crl.M.P.No.7865 of 2017 dated 21.07.2017 in Crl.Appeal No.368 of 2016, against Sessions Case No.178 of 2008 on the file of the Honble Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District dated 29.04.2016 pending disposal of the appeal.

¶14

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.C.R.MALARVANNAN Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.K.MATHAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:-

¶15

This petitioner was granted bail in Crl.M.P.No.10768 of 2016, dated 21.07.2017, on condition that he should stay at Villupuram and report before the Inspector of Police, Villupuram Police Station, daily at 9.00a.m. This condition was further modified in Crl.M.P.No.11389 of 2017 on 08.09.2017 and the petitioner was directed to stay in Gingee and report before the Inspector of Police, Gingee Police Station, daily at 9.00 a.m. until further orders. The present application has been filed for relaxation of the said condition.

¶16

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the petitioner is reporting before the Inspector of Police, Gingee Police Station from 14.09.2017.

¶17

In such view of the matter, the said condition is relaxed and it is further directed that the petitioner shall report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vandavasi on the first working day of every month until the disposal of the appeal. If on any day, the petitioner is not able to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vandavasi, he shall make arrangements to file an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and shall report before the said Magistrate in lieu of the date of his absence, to any other date as directed by the learned Magistrate.

¶18

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered accordingly.

¶19

-sd/-

¶20

10/11/2017

¶21

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

¶22

TRUE COPY

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)

¶24

High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶25

¶26

1 THE SESSIONS JUDGE TIRUVANNAMALAI,TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT

¶27

2 THE DISTRICIT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VANDAVASI

¶28

3 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUVANNAMALI[FOR INFORMATION]

¶29

4 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VANDAVASI

¶30

5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DESUR POLICE STATION, TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT.

¶31

6 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶32

7 THE INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, VILLUPURAM TOWN POLICE STATION,VILLUPURAM

¶33

8 THE INSEPCTOR OF POLICE GINGEE POLICE STATION, GINGEE

¶34

+1 C.C. to M/S.C.R.MALARVANNAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO. 20762

¶35

From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format RD 14/11/2017

Govindaraj, Aged 49 Years v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindaraj, Aged 49 Years v. State Represented 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

K.Muthusamy M/65 Years Vs S.K.Parthasarathy M/58 Years

K.Haribabu, M/54 Years Vs M.Kulasekaran, M/60

State Represented by Vs Chinnadurai, M/A-36/2010

Jayapal, Age 55 Years Vs State Represented by

Arul Prakash, 40 Years, Vs State, Represented by

K.Nagendran, M/A.49 Vs State Rep. by