Partly allowed

Palanivel v. State Represented by

Madras HC6 Dec 2018CRL MP/15680/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court extended the time for depositing the balance bail amount of Rs.15,00,000/- by four weeks, noting the petitioner's business loss and agreement by the defacto complainant, while warning that no further extensions would be granted.

What did the court decide?

Time extended by four weeks to deposit Rs.15,00,000/-; no further extension granted conditional on compliance or cancellation of bail.

Palanivel Vs State Represented by — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Sixth day of December Two Thousand Eighteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.15680 of 2018

¶7

IN CRL OP.21610/2017

¶8

I. PALANIVEL [ PETITIONER ] Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, R5-VIRUGAMPAKKAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI-600 027, CR.NO.1067 OF 2016.

¶9

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court will be pleased to extend the time for deposit balance amount a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs Only) in Crime No.1067 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police in Crl.O.P.No.21610 of 2017, order dated 14.09.2018.

¶10

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.K.KRISHNAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of M/S.M.PRABHAVATHI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:-

¶11

Heard both sides.

¶12

This application is filed to extend the time for depositing balance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs Only) in Crime No.1067 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police in Crl.O.P.No.21610 of 2017 dated 14.09.2018.

¶13

This Court has already granted time for payment of Rs.15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs Only) by eight weeks in its order dated 14.09.2018. Due to business loss the petitioner could not comply with the condition within a time period extended by this Court. It seems, that the defacto complainant is also agreeing for extension of time.

¶14

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

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to extend time by another four weeks from today to deposit remaining amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs Only) as per the condition imposed by this Court by an order dated 05.12.2017. Hereafter, no more extension of time will be granted. If the petitioner fails to comply with the condition, the order granted by this Court in Crl.OP.No.21610 of 2017 dated 05.12.2017 shall stand automatically cancelled.

¶16

-sd/06/12/2018 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NO.XXIII, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI. 2 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, R5-VIRUGAMPAKKAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI-600 027. +1C.C. to M/S.K.KRISHNAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO.23317 Order in CRL MP.15680/2018 in CRL OP.21610/2017 Date :06/12/2018

¶17

From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MK:13/12/2018

Palanivel v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palanivel v. State Represented by

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

A.Seetha Vs Iop Dcb Kpm

Renugambal, Vs State Rep.by

T.Muthukumaran, Vs Sub-Inspector of Police

Murugesan Vs State Rep by

Santhalingam Vs State Rep. by

Arumugam @ Kishore Vs State by