Allowed

Ganapathy v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC20 Dec 2018CRL OP/29842/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court modified a bail condition requiring one surety to be a close relative. The petitioner was detained as he could not find such relatives. The Court removed the 'close relative' constraint, allowing any two sureties acceptable to the police or Court.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 28.12.2017 modified to allow execution of bond with two sureties of Rs.10,000 each satisfactory to respondent police or this Court, removing requirement for a close relative.

Ganapathy Vs the State Rep by Its — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.12.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.29842 of 2018

¶6

Ganapathy ... Petitioner

¶7

State rep by The Inspector of Police, Pallikaranai Police Station, (Crime No.2911 of 2017) ... Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 439 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C., to modify the condition imposed on the petitioner herein by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur in Crl.M.P.No.7394 of 2017 that the petitioner is released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for the like sum out of which one surety must be close relatives.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thiyagaraj For respondent : Mrs. M.Prabhavathi Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶10

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to modify the condition imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur order dated 28.12.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.7394 of 2017.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is unable to execute two sureties out of which, one must be close relatives, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur due to which he is inside the prison for the past 10 months, hence, he seeks for modification of the said condition.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to modify the said condition to the effect that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each

¶13

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

¶14

for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of this Court concerned. It is made clear that excepting the said modification in the sureties, in all other respects, the order dated 28.12.2017 shall remain unaltered.

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶17

//True Copy//

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar
kv
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.
2. do through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Pallikaranai Police Station,
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
+2 cc to Mr.P.Thiyagaraj, Advocate Sr.No.336
Crl.O.P.No.29842 of 2018
SKV(CO)
CSL/03.01.2019

¶19

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

Ganapathy v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganapathy v. the State Rep by Its

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

K.Udayakumar Vs Iop Dcb Tvrur

B.Rangasamy, Vs State by

M.Lavanya Vs State Rep. by

Prakash Vs State Represented by

Muhamed Ersheti Vs State Rep. by

Vipin Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police