Partly allowed

M.Thangaraj v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC21 Apr 2017CRL MP(MD)/2981/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court relaxed the condition imposed on the petitioner in criminal M.P. No.514 of 2017 regarding payment for removal of Prosopis juli flora trees. The court held that since the petitioner complied with the directive, the payment condition is waived, though he must still appear for police interrogation when required.

What did the court decide?

Relied on the compliance memo to relax the payment condition for bail; directed petitioner to appear for police interrogation when required.

M.Thangaraj Vs the Inspector of Police — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

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

¶2

Friday, the Twenty First day of April Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice J.NISHA BANU

¶5

CRL MP(MD) No.2981 of 2017 IN CRL MP(MD) No.514 of 2017 IN CRL OP(MD) No.20593 of 2016

¶6

M.THANGARAJ ... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶7

STATE REP.BY

¶8

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAVALPATTU POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT (CRIME NO.94/2014) ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶9

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to modify the condition imposed on the Petitioner as in order dated 24/01/2017 by this Honourable Court in Crl.M.P.(MD) No.514 of 2017 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.20593 of 2016 and thus render justice.

¶10

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

¶11

The petitioner has filed this petition to modify the condition imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 24.01.2017 by this Court in Crl.M.P.No.514 of 2017 in Crl.O.P.No.20593 of 2016.

¶12

2.When the matter came up for hearing on 19.04.2017, this Court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- in the account opened in the name of the Registrar (Administration), (for removal of Prosopis Juli Flora (Karuvelam Trees), Savings Bank Account No.6514082295, Indian Bank, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai on or before 20.04.2017. He further submitted that the petitioner had complied with the said direction and cost memo has also been filed to that effect.

¶13

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

¶14

3.In view of the same, the condition imposed on the petitioner is relaxed. However, the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.III,TIRUCHIRAPPALI.

¶18

DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,TIRUCHIRAPPALI.

¶19

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAVALPATTU POLICE STATION,TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶20

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

¶21

COPY TO:

¶22

1.THE REGISTRAR(ADMINISTRATION) MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 2.THE MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1cc to M/S.J.ANANDHAVALLI, Advocate, in SR No. 20818

¶23

IN CRL MP(MD) No.514 of 2017 Date :21/04/2017

¶24

MKV-KKR-SAR 4/5.5.2017/2P-8C

¶25

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

M.Thangaraj v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Thangaraj 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

P.Sathish Kumar, Vs the Inspector of Police

Kumaran Vs the Inspector of Police

Ramesh Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

S.Sivakumar, Vs State through

Rajkumar, Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Jayaprakash Vs the Inspector of Police