Allowed

Subash Kannan, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Nov 2017CRL MP(MD)/10458/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought relaxation of a bail condition imposed by the Madras High Court in a prior case involving offences under IPC 506(i) and POCSO 2012. The court, after hearing counsel, held that since the petitioner had complied with conditions for two months, the existing bail condition shall be relaxed. Petitioner now appears upon summons.

What did the court decide?

The condition of bail already imposed on the petitioner is relaxed; the petitioner shall appear before the police as and when required for interrogation on receipt of summons.

Subash Kannan, Vs the Inspector of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Wednesday, the Twenty Second day of November Two Thousand Seventeen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRL MP(MD) No.10458 of 2017 IN CRL OP(MD) No.11989 of 2017

¶7

SUBASH KANNAN ... PETITIONER/ PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2

¶8

¶9

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.9 OF 2017) ... RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶10

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to pass an order relaxing the bail condition imposed on the petitioner by this Honourable Court made in Crl.O.P(MD).No.11989 of 2017 dated 12/09/2017.

¶11

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

¶12

The Petitioner filed this petition for relaxing the condition imposed by this Court for the offences punishable under Section 506 (i) of I.P.C., and Section 11(6) and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in Crime No.9 of 2017, while granting anticipatory bail.

¶13

2.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶14

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the petitioner is complying with the condition regularly for a period of 60 days.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the condition already imposed on the petitioner is relaxed and the

¶16

¶17

petitioner shall appear before the respondent police, as and when required for interrogation on receipt of summons. This petition is ordered.

¶18

sd/22/11/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK MAHILA COURT, KANYAKUMARI AT NAGERCOIL. 2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL MP(MD) No.10458 of 2017 IN CRL OP(MD) No.11989 of 2017 Date :22/11/2017 MS/RR/SAR.4/29.11.2017/2P.4C

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Subash Kannan, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subash Kannan, v. the Inspector of Police

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

S.Nareshkumar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

S.Rafeeque Ahmed, Vs the Commpssioner of Police

Murugesan Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Mrs.R.Lakshmi, Vs Mrs.J.Susila

Mohanraj Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Noyal Raj Vs the Deputy Superintendent of