Partly allowed

Balakrishna Menan v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC25 Jan 2019CRL OP/1853/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified bail conditions for an accused incarcerated for 87 days. The cash security deposit was reduced from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- while retaining the bond and daily appearance conditions under Section 439(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The condition to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- was modified to Rs.1,00,000/-. Other bail conditions remain intact.

Balakrishna Menan Vs the State Rep by Its — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.01.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.1853 of 2019

¶6

Balakrishna Menan ... Petitioner/Accused I

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Thiruvallur District. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439(1)(b) Cr.P.C. praying to modify the condition imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvallur i in Crl.M.P.No.5000 of 2018 dated 03.12.2018 in so far as the condition to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- as cash security and to execute bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Shivaraj Mohan For Respondent : Mrs.M.Prabhavathi Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

This petition has been filed to modify the condition imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvallur in Crl.M.P.No.5000 of 2018 dated 03.12.2018 in so far as the condition to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- as cash security and to execute bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the past 87 days. He would submit that the petitioner is no way connected with the crime as alleged by the prosecution. There is no overt act against the petitioner. Further the trial Court granted bail and the learned trial Judge had imposed the following conditions:-

¶13

“the petitioner on his depositing of Rs.2,00,000/- before this Court towards the

¶14

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

¶15

said crime and to execute bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties and petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent station daily at 10.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m, until further orders “

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that while the petitioner was enlarged on bail no condition can be imposed and it is onerous and stringent. Therefore, he prays to modify the conditions imposed, while he was granted bail.

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner involved in huge and grave crime. To get a medical seat for the defacto complainant's son, the petitioner along with other accused persons cheated the him to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-. Therefore, she sought for dismissal of this petition seeking modification.

¶18

It is seen from the records that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the past 87 days. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvallur has also granted bail to the petitioner in CMP.No.5000 of 2018 dated 03.12.2018 on condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.2,00,000/- before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvallur.

¶19

Considering the above facts and circumstances and coaccused was enlarged on bail on condition that he shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in Crime No.22 of 2018. Hence this Court is also inclined to modify the condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.2,00,000/before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvallur, towards the Crime No.22 of 2018 and to execute bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties. The other conditions shall remain intact.

¶20

This Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

Jer

¶24

¶25

1.The Judicial Magistrate No. I, Thiruvallur.

¶26

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

¶27

The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Thiruvallur District.

¶28

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.P.Shivaraj Mohan, Advocate, S.R.No. 1637

¶30

CRL.O.P.No.1853 of 2019
RJI(CO)
GN(28/01/2019)

¶31

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

Balakrishna Menan v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balakrishna Menan 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

D.Dhanislas Vs the State Rep.by

Kishor Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Mohan Raj Vs the Inspector of Police

Jestin Vs the Superintendent of Police

Noor Mohammed @ Navaman @ Rameez Vs the State Rep by Its

K.Ramanathan Vs Dy Sup of Po Trichy