Partly allowed

Moorthy v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Madras HC20 Dec 2017CRL MP(MD)/11304/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court, exercising its power under Section 482 of the CrPC, relaxed the bail condition requiring the petitioner's personal appearance. The petitioner, an accused in a caste-atrocities case under the SC/ST (POA) Act, need only appear upon receipt of a summons pending further investigation.

What did the court decide?

The condition requiring personal appearance is relaxed; petitioner shall appear only on receipt of summons.

Moorthy Vs the Deputy Superintendent of — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Wednesday, the Twentieth day of December Two Thousand Seventeen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED

¶6

CRL MP(MD) No.11304 of 2017 IN CRL A(MD) No.452 of 2017

¶7

MOORTHY ... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ ACCUSED No.1

¶8

¶9

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, AUNDIPATTI SUB DIVISION, THENI DISTRICT, CRIME NO.774/2017 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶10

Prayer in CRL MP(MD) No.11304 of 2017:

¶11

Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to relax the condition imposed upon the petitioner in Crl.A(MD). No.452/2017 by order dated 13.11.2017.

¶12

Prayer in CRL A(MD)No.452/2017 :

¶13

The Petition filed under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 as amended by Act 1/2016, praying to call for the records relating to the order dated 03/11/2017 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Theni made in Cr.M.P.No.3584/2017 and set aside the same and consequently to release the petitioner on bail in connection with case in Crime No.774/2017 on the file of the respondent police.

¶14

Order : This Petition coming for hearing on this day, upon perusing the petition, affidavit and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.P.VENKATESAN, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.C.MAYIL VAHANA RAJENDRAN, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent, this court made the following order:-

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner is present.

¶16

2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the petitioner is complying with the conditions imposed by this Court in Criminal Appeal from 16.11.2017 and investigation has not been completed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

3.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and

¶18

¶19

considering the nature of charges, the earlier condition is relaxed and the petitioner shall appear before the respondent Police as and when required only on receipt of summons. This petition is ordered accordingly.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar (T&P)

¶21

/True Copy/

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

¶24

1 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, AUNDIPATTI SUB DIVISION, THENI DISTRICT.

¶25

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶26

+1. C.C. to M/S.S.RAMASAMY Advocate SR.No. 36645

¶27

DATED : 20.12.2017

¶28

ORDER

¶29

CRL MP(MD) No.11304 of 2017 IN CRL A(MD) No.452 of 2017

¶30

Giving Direction and etc., as stated within.

¶31

TE/SV/SAR-4 : 29/12/2017 : 2P/4C

¶32

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

Moorthy v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moorthy v. the Deputy Superintendent of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thavamani, Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Prakash, Vs the Inspector of Police

L.Muthuvalan, Vs the Inspector of Police

T.Kamatchi, Vs the Vigilance Commissioner

A. Murugan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Poomayil Vs Sakila