Partly allowed

Mohamed Abbas @ Babu v. the State

Madras HC5 Sept 2019CRL MP/11542/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal miscellaneous petition filed to relax bail reporting conditions from the Judicial Magistrate to the Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station. The court modified the reporting place to the Police Station while retaining the same time slots.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear daily at 10.30 a.m., 2.30 p.m., and 5.30 p.m. before the Chengalpattu Taluk police station instead of the Judicial Magistrate.

Mohamed Abbas @ Babu Vs the State — Madras HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Fifth day of September Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.11542 of 2019

¶7

IN CRL OP.19168/2019

¶8

MOHAMED ABBAS @ BABU [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs

¶9

THE STATE [ RESPONDENT ] REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGALPATTU TOWN POLICE STATION, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT (CRIME NO.205/2019).

¶10

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court will be pleased to relax the conditions imposed on petitioner that he shall report before the Judicial Magistrate II, Chengalpattu, daily at 10.30 am, 02.30 pm and 05.30 pm, until further orders in Crl.O.P.No.19168 of 2019 in order dated 19.07.2019

¶11

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. D.PRASANNA KUMAR, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.T.SHUNMUGARAJESWARAN Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) on behalf of the Respondent and of M/S.R.PREM ANANDHAN Advocate for the Defacto Complainant, the court made the following order:-

¶12

This petition has been filed to relax the condition imposed on the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.19168 of 2019 dated 19.07.2019 report before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu, daily at 10.30 a.m., 2.30 p.m., and 5.30 p.m., until further orders.

¶13

2.Heard both sides.

¶14

3.The learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner is complying with the conditions regularly.

¶15

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

¶16

4.Considering the said submission, the condition imposed as against the petitioners are modified to the effect that the petitioners are directed to appear before the Chengalpatt Taluk police station daily at 10.30 a.m., 2.30 p.m., and 5.30 p.m., until further orders.

¶17

-sd/-

¶18

05/09/2019

¶19

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶20

TRUE COPY

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, CHENGALPATTU.

¶22

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHENGALPATTU [FOR INFORMATION]

¶23

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶24

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGALPATTU TOWN POLICE STATION, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT. 5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGALPATTU TALUK POLICE STATION, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT.

¶25

C.C. to M/S. D.PRASANNA KUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶26

+1C.C. to M/S. R.PREM ANANDHAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO.18646

¶27

Order

¶28

¶29

CRL MP.11542/2019 in CRL OP.19168/2019

¶30

Date :05/09/2019

¶31

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:10/09/2019

Mohamed Abbas @ Babu v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Abbas @ Babu v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Hariaharan Vs Gopakumar Balakrishnan

Mrs. K. Hemalatha Vs Mr. M. Kannivel

A.Ezhilarasi Vs Anandrao Vishnu Patil I.A.S

V.Munusamy Vs State Rep by

Suseel Raj Kumar Vs the State Rep by

Mrs.Alice Manoranjitham Vs Mr.G.Natarajan