Allowed

Muhamed Ersheti v. State Rep. by

Madras HC20 Dec 2018CRL OP/29875/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a Criminal Original Petition to modify bail conditions. The petitioner, an accused unable to produce a blood surety to satisfy a lower court order, sought modification. The court permitted execution of a bond with two sureties, removing the requirement for a blood relative.

What did the court decide?

The order directing the petitioner to produce a blood surety was modified to allow execution of a bond with two sureties acceptable to the police or court.

Muhamed Ersheti Vs State Rep. by — Cheque Dishonour | 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.29875 of 2018

¶6

Muhamed Ersheti ... Petitioner/Accused

¶7

/Vs/

¶8

State rep by The Inspector of Police, Cheyyar Police Station, Cheyyar (Crime No.207 of 2018) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Prayer:

¶10

Criminal Original Petition filed under section 439 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C., to modify the condition order passed in CMP.No.4358 of 2018 dated 10.10.2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurandhagam, directing "the petitioner to produce two sureties out of which, one must be blood sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial magistrate, Madurandhagam and that may be pleased to modified to accept the Non-blood sureties with acceptable proof as address."

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Anbarasan

¶12

For respondent : Mrs.M.Prabhavathi Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This petition has been filed by the petitioner to modify the condition imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurandhagam order dated 10.10.2018 in C.M.P.No.4358 of 2018.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is unable to execute two sureties out of which, one must be blood sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurandhagam, due to which he is inside the prison for the past 2 months, hence, he seeks for modification of the said condition.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to modify the said condition to the effect

¶17

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

¶18

that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each 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 10.10.2018 shall remain unaltered.

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate,
Madurandhagam.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Cheyyar Police Station, Cheyyar.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
+1cc to Mr.E.Anbarasan, Advocate in sr.no.89837 (24/12/2018)
Crl.O.P.No.29875 of 2018
kj[co]
srg 21/12/2018

¶21

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

Muhamed Ersheti v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhamed Ersheti v. State Rep. by

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

Ganapathy Vs the State Rep by Its

Vipin Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police