Allowed

Suganthi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Oct 2017CRL MP(MD)/8508/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought relaxation of a bail condition requiring daily reporting until 6.00 pm. The court, noting the petitioner's regular appearance before the investigation officer since October 3, 2017, relaxed the condition, allowing appearance only upon summons.

What did the court decide?

Relaxed the condition to report every day at 6.00 pm; ordered the petitioner to appear before the concerned court only as and when required on receipt of summons.

Suganthi Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Friday, the Twentieth day of October Two Thousand Seventeen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRL MP(MD) No.8508 of 2017 IN CRL OP(MD) No.9755 of 2017

¶7

SUGANTHI ... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAJAPALAYAM NORTH POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT CR.NO.428/2017 ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶10

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 on the petitioner/accused in Crl.O.P.No.9755/2017 dated 28.07.2017 and dispense with the condition of reporting before the respondent police every day at 6.00 pm.

¶11

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.C.ARUNMOZHI RAJASHANKAR, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent, the court made the following order:-

¶12

This petition has been filed to relax the condition imposed in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9755 of 2017 dated 28.07.2017.

¶13

2.The petitioner was charged under Section 380 IPC in Crime No.428 of 2017.

¶14

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 per earlier order, 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 03.10.2017 to 19.10.2017 regularly.

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

5.This petition is ordered accordingly.

¶18

sd/20/10/2017 / TRUE COPY /

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAJAPALAYAM, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT

¶22

2 -do- thro' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR.

¶23

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAJAPALAYAM NORTH POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT

¶24

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI ORDER IN CRL MP(MD) No.8508 of 2017 IN CRL OP(MD) No.9755 of 2017 Date :20/10/2017

¶25

Myr/smi

¶26

SH/CM/SAR-2:01.11.2017:2p/5c

¶27

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

Suganthi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suganthi 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

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

Muniasamy, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Senthil Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police