Allowed

Muniasamy, v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Oct 2017CRL MP(MD)/8267/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court relaxed bail conditions imposed in a connected order. The court noted the petitioner appeared regularly for investigation and directed future appearance only upon receipt of summons, closing a connected criminal matter.

What did the court decide?

Relaxation of bail conditions to appear only on receipt of summons; closure of connected Crl.M.P.(MD) No.8787 of 2017.

Muniasamy, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

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

¶2

Friday, the Twentieth day of October Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

CRL MP(MD) No.8267 of 2017 IN CRL OP(MD) No.9190 of 2017

¶6

1 MUNIASAMY,

¶7

2 S.MARIMUTHU, ... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS

¶8

¶9

STATE REP.BY

¶10

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARANERI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. (CR.NO.152/2017) ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶11

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to relax the condition imposed in Crl.OP(MD)No.9190 of 2017 dated 27.07.2017

¶12

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

¶13

This petition has been filed to relax the condition imposed in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9190 of 2017 dated 27.07.2017.

¶14

2.The petitioner was charged under Sections 379 IPC and 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 in Crime No.152 of 2017.

¶15

3.When this case came up before this Court on 03.10.2017, the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the petitioner did not appear as directed by this Court. Thereafter, this Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigation Officer regularly for a period of two weeks. Today, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has appeared before the Investigation Officer from 03.10.2017 to 19.10.2017 regularly.

¶16

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to relax the conditions imposed by this Court and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court as and when required, on receipt of summons.

¶17

5.This petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, the connected Crl.M.P.(MD)No.8787 of 2017 is closed.

¶18

sd/20/10/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I SIVAKASI 2 -DO-THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VIRUDHUNAGAR AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR 3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARANERI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. C.C. to M/S.M.JothiBasu Advocate SR.No.32947 ORDER IN CRL MP(MD) No.8267 of 2017 IN CRL OP(MD) No.9190 of 2017 Date :20/10/2017 sm:PM-PN:SAR 4:31.10.2017:2p/6c

¶19

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

Muniasamy, v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muniasamy, v. the Sub 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

Sethu Vs the Inspector of Police

Jeyakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Manuvel Joel, Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Krishnan Vs the Inspector of Police

Suganthi Vs the Inspector of Police

Senthil Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police