Partly allowed

K.Gopinathan, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Nov 2017CRL MP(MD)/10482/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail petitioner sought modification of conditions imposed by this Court for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 324 and 506 IPC, seeking to appear at any police station in Ramanathapuram. The Court modified the condition requiring appearance once weekly at the respondent police station.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall appear before the respondent police once in a week i.e., on every Monday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

K.Gopinathan, Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

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

¶2

Monday, the Twentieth day of November Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

CRL MP(MD) No.10482 of 2017 IN CRL OP(MD) No.14181 of 2017

¶6

K.GOPINATHAN ... PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶7

¶8

STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAINARKOIL POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

(CRIME NO.230 OF 2017) ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶10

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to modify the condition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14181 of 2017 dated 24.10.2017 by directing the petitioner to appear before the any other police station in Ramanathapuram instead of the respondent police and thus render justice.

¶11

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.R.MURUGAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate(Crl.Side)on behalf of the Respondents 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 Sections147, 148, 294(b), 341, 324 and 506(ii) IPC, in Crime No.230 of 2017.

¶13

2.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶14

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

petitioner is complying with the condition regularly.

¶16

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the condition already imposed on the petitioner is modified to the effect that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police once in a week i.e., on every Monday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶17

sd/20/11/2017 / TRUE COPY /

¶18

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶19

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PARAMAKUDI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAINARKOIL POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. C.C. to M/S.R.MURUGAN Advocate SR.No.34721

¶20

ORDER IN CRL MP(MD) No.10482 of 2017 IN CRL OP(MD) No.14181 of 2017 Date :20/11/2017 PK/RR/SAR-2/24.11.2017 : 2P/6C

¶21

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

K.Gopinathan, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Gopinathan, 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

Mercury Agency Vs Selvaraj

Nallu Vs the Inspector of Police

Veerapandi, Vs the Inspector of Police

Jose Rabin @ Jose Milde Robin Vs the Inspector of Police

Chandrapandian @ Chandran Vs the Inspector of Police

Micheal Rosy, Vs the Inspector of Police