Dismissed

Dr.M.Sethuraman, M/72, v. MR.RAMESH,M/40

Madras HC21 Jun 2017CRL OP/8295/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras disposed of two criminal original petitions filed by a de facto complainant to cancel the antecedent bail granted to the first respondent. The Court found no specific averments of non-compliance or sufficient grounds for cancellation and dismissed the petitions, directing the accused to comply with existing bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; accused directed to comply with bail conditions imposed in Crl.M.P.Nos. 6588 and 6589 of 2017.

Dr.M.Sethuraman, M/72, Vs MR.RAMESH,M/40 — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.06.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.BASKARAN,

¶5

Crl.O.P.Nos.8295 and 8296 of 2017

¶6

Dr.M.Sethuraman ... Petitioner in both Crl.O.Ps.

¶7

/versus/

¶8

1.Mr.Ramesh 2.The State rep.by Inspector of Police, J-1 Saidapet Police Station, (Crime No.3752/2012) ... Respondents in both Crl.O.Ps.

¶9

Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.8295 of 2017: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439(2)of Code of Criminal Procedure Code praying to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in Crl.M.P.No.6588 of 2017 on the file of learned Principal and Sessions Judge, Chennai dated 20^th April, 2017 in C.C.No.4228 of 2015.

¶10

Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.8296 of 2017: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439(2)of Code of Criminal Procedure Code praying to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in Crl.M.P.No.6589 of 2017 on the file of learned Principal and Sessions Judge, Chennai dated 20^th April, 2017 in C.C.No.1725 of 2013.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Silambanan, Senior Counsel for (both cases) M/s S.P.Hari Krishnan

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohammed Rafi for R1 Mr.R.Sekar (both cases) Government Advocate(crl.side) for R2 COMMON ORDER

¶13

These Criminal Original Petitions are filed praying to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in Crl.M.P.Nos.6588 and 6589 of 2017 on the file of learned Principal and Sessions Judge, Chennai, dated 20^th April, 2017 in C.C.Nos.4288 of 2015 and C.C.No.1725 of 2013 respectively.

¶14

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

¶15

While granting bail, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai imposed the conditions on the petitioner that he shall be released on bail, on his executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai; the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit to the effect that he will appear before the trial Court on all the hearings dates in C.C.No.1725 of 2013 and C.C.No.4228 of 2015 and further directed to surrender his passport to the Magistrate concerned and the same is to be kept under Court custody till the disposal of the cases in C.C.No.1725 of 2013 and C.C.No.4228 of 2015.

¶16

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant would submit that the trial Court failed to take note of the conduct of the accused, even after the recall of warrant on two occasions and the trial Court also failed to note that the accused may flee to another counter, as in the case of his sister/co-accused, who surrendered her passport in the court, inspite of the same, she managed to leave the country on fake documents. Hence, he prays for allowing the petitions.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent/accused would submit that the first respondent is the son of the petitioner/defacto complainant and he is arrayed as A2 in the case in Crime No.3752 of 2012, which was registered by the second respondent, which is now pending trial in the case in C.C.No.1725 of 2013, on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. The 1^st respondent is also arrayed as A1 in the case in Crime No.1815 of 2015, that was registered by the 2^nd respondent police and the same is presently pending for trial in C.C.No.4228 of 2015 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶18

5.The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent further submit that the conditional bail was granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai by a common order dated 20.04.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.6588 of 2017 and 6589 of 2017. The first respondent/accused had duly complied with and continuously complying with all the conditions imposed on him by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in the above said common order passed. Being so, the petitioner/defacto complainant had now come out with the present petitions for cancellation of bail on grounds of unsustainable and devoid of any merits. The first respondent/accused submits that the present petitions for cancellation of bail are liable to be dismissed. Further, he submitted that no valid reasons for cancellation of bail have been made out, especially when the reasons given for grant of bail are well considered and in conformity with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶19

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

¶20

Heard both side and perused the materials available on record.

¶21

It appears that there is no specific averments made for non-compliance of the conditional order imposed on the first respondent/accused by this Court. The petitioner, who is the father of the first respondent herein is having several litigations between them in various Courts. According to the petition, the first respondent has committed acts of moral turpitude and the same has been pointed out in the earlier orders and thus, prays to entertain the petition. However, considering the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and taking note of the fact that number of litigations pending between them and also the fact that the first respondent/accused is said to have been complying with the conditions imposed on the bail petition. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition since no ground is made out for cancellation of the bail petitions.

¶22

Accordingly, these criminal original petitions are disposed of by directing the first respondent/accused to comply with the conditions imposed on the bail petitions by the Court in Crl.M.P.Nos.6588 and 6589 of 2017 dated 20.04.2017.

¶23

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS VI )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To

¶24

The Principal & Sessions Judge, Chennai.

¶25

XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.

¶26

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶27

The Inspector of Police, J-1 Saidapet Police Station, Chennai.

¶28

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

¶29

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶30

+2ccs toMr.S.P.Harikrishnan, Advocate Sr. 46094+46095

¶31

Crl.O.P.Nos.8295 and 8296 of 2017

¶32

VGI(CO) VR(10/07/2017)

¶33

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

Dr.M.Sethuraman, M/72, v. MR.RAMESH,M/40

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.M.Sethuraman, M/72, v. MR.RAMESH,M/40

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

Sudharshan Venkatraman, Vs the State

V.Udayakumar, M/40 Vs State Rep.by

K.Raman, Aged 35 Yrs Vs State Rep.by

M.Venkatesh, Aged 23 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Vinothini, F/Age 20 Years Vs State Rep.by

K.Raju, Aged 52 Years, Vs the State Rep. by