Disposed

Velpandi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Dec 2017CRL MP(MD)/11051/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a petition filed to extend the time prescribed for the petitioner to produce sureties under a prior bail order. After hearing counsel and considering the affidavit supporting the petition, the Court extended the period for two weeks. This is an order of extension.

What did the court decide?

Time for execution of sureties extended for two weeks from the date of the order.

Velpandi Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Wednesday, the Sixth day of December Two Thousand Seventeen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

VELPANDI ... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ ACCUSED No.2

¶7

Vs STATE REP. BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PULIYAMPATTI POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT (In Crime No.72/2017). ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶8

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to extend the time granted in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15571/2017 dated 15.11.2017 on the file of this Honourable Court.

¶9

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

¶10

This petition is filed to extend the time granted to the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.15571 of 2017, dated 15.11.2017.

¶11

2.This Court, by order dated 15.11.2017, made in Crl.O.P(MD)No. 15571 of 2017, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner and directed the petitioner to appear before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy was made ready. However, the petitioner did not comply with conditions, within the time prescribed by this Court. Hence, he has approached this Court with the present petition for extension of time.

¶12

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner could not produce the sureties within the time prescribed by this Court and hence, he prays for extension of time.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side).

¶14

¶15

5.Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, this petition is ordered and the time for execution of sureties is extended for two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

sd/06/12/2017 / TRUE COPY /

¶17

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶18

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶19

Madurai - 625 023.

¶20

¶21

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, KOVILPATTI.

¶22

2 -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶23

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PULIYAMPATTI POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT

¶24

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶25

+1. C.C. to M/S.M.PRABU Advocate SR.No.35660

¶26

ORDER IN CRL MP(MD) No.11051 of 2017 IN CRL OP(MD) No.15571 of 2017

¶27

Date :06/12/2017

¶28

pjl SH/CM-VR/SAR-1:07.12.2017:2P/6C

¶29

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

Velpandi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Velpandi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja Vs the Inspector of Police

Athul Vs the Inspector of Police

Saravana Kumaran Vs the Inspector of Police

Vijayamirtharaj, Vs the Inspector of Police

Ramar, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

P. Jittu Alis Jeethmal Vs the Inspector of Police