Dismissed

Murugan, (M/48 Years) v. State Rep. by

Madras HC27 Nov 2017CRL MP/14698/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner sought extension of time to furnish sureties after the original two-week period expired. The court held that such stipulations apply only to anticipatory bail in custody cases and deleted the two-week requirement.

What did the court decide?

The stipulated time period of two weeks to furnish sureties was deleted; no extension of time was granted.

Murugan, (M/48 Years) Vs State Rep. by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Monday, the Twenty Seventh day of November Two Thousand Seventeen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P. N. PRAKASH

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.14698 of 2017

¶7

IN CRL A.406/2017

¶8

MURUGAN, [ PETITIONER ]

¶9

¶10

STATE REP. BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, D11, SAI BABA COLONY, P.S, COIMBATORE.CR.NO.1505/2013.

¶11

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court will be pleased to extend the time granted to execute the suspense of sentence order by another two weeks granted in Crl.MP.NO.8761/2017 in C.A.No.406/2017 order dated 27.07.2017 on the file of this Honble Court.

¶12

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.T.MURUGANANTHAM, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR. K. MADHAN, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:-

¶13

This Court, in Crl.M.P.No.8761 of 2017 in Crl.A.No.406 of 2017, by order dated 27.07.2017, suspended the sentence and enlarged the petitioner on bail with a direction to the petitioner to furnish sureties within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. Since two weeks period has expired, the petitioner has come forward with this application for extension of time.

¶14

In the opinion of this Court, such time periods are stipulated only when Anticipatory Bail is granted. Here, the petitioner is in custody and therefore, the time period of two weeks stipulated in the order dated 27.07.2017 stands deleted.

¶15

Accordingly, this petition is ordered.

¶16

-sd/27/11/2017

¶17

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

¶18

TRUE COPY

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

1 STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, D11, SAI BABA COLONY, P.S, COIMBATORE.CR.NO.1505/2013.

¶22

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶23

+1 C.C. to M/S.T.MURUGANANTHAM Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.No.21834

¶24

Date :27/11/2017

¶25

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

¶26

MD: 05/12/2017

Murugan, (M/48 Years) v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan, (M/48 Years) v. 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

Mrs. B. Madhumathi, 27 Yrs, Vs Mr. S.Babu, 33 Yrs

Ssaababathi Vs Dhanasekaran

M/S.G.v.Films Ltd., Rep.by Vs M/S.Golden Square Films (P)

V.Udayakumar (40 Years), Vs State Rep by

Priya @ Parimala, Vs the State Rep by Its

S.Palaniappan Vs M.Amal Martin Singh