Dismissed

Sundarraman v. Bharahti@Padmanabhan

Madras HC24 Sept 2019CRL OP/19838/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail cancellation petition, the petitioner challenged bail conditions imposed by the Sessions Court and modified by the Single Judge. The Court held that since these conditions were subsequently modified by the petitioner and the respondents, the cancellation application could not survive, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition seeking cancellation of bail is dismissed as the underlying application does not survive the modifications made to the bail conditions.

Sundarraman Vs Bharahti@Padmanabhan — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.09.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.19838 of 2019

¶6

Sundarraman

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

vs. 1. Bharathi @ Padmanabhan 2. The Inspector of Police, Kanakamma Chathiram Police Station, Kanakamma Chatram, Thiruvallur District – 631 204. ...Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 (ii) of Cr.P.C., to cancel the anticipatory bail order in Crl.M.P.No.3131 of 2019 dated 04.07.2019 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, at Thiruvallur.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Rameskant For R1 : Mr.Sundar Mohan Mr.S.Kathiravan For R2 : Mr.T.Shunmugarajeswaran Government Advocate (Crl side) ORDER

¶10

This Petition is filed for cancellation of bail sought for on the ground that the condition imposed by the Sessions Court, namely to deposit a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- in Crime No.195 of 2019 and further condition viz., to appear before the respondent police and both of them sought for modification of this Court, that the petitioner to appear before the respondent police at 10.30 a.m., until further orders and both of them have modified.

¶11

The condition imposed by this Court in an order dated 16.07.2019 in Crl.O.P.No.18475 of 2019, whereby, the learned Single Judge, had set aside the condition imposed by the

¶12

1/2

¶13

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

¶14

Sessions Court to deposit a sum of Rs.1,08,000/-. Further in the order dated 20.08.2019 in Crl.O.P.No.22272 of 2019, whereby the order directing the petitioner to report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., was modified to be present before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶15

In view of the facts, the application seeking for cancellation of bail, which is based on the said two conditions does not survives. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
msrm
To
1. The Principal District Sessions Judge,
Thiruvallur.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Kanakamma Chathiram Police Station,
Kanakamma Chatram,
Thiruvallur District – 631 204.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶17

+1cc to Mr.S.Kathiravan, Advocate sr.94671(15/11/2019)

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.19838 of 2019 mp(co) nr 30/10/2019

¶19

2/2

¶20

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

Sundarraman v. Bharahti@Padmanabhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundarraman v. Bharahti@Padmanabhan

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

Gnanasekaran Vs the Revenue Divisionalofficer

Nagalingam Vs State Rep by

S.Navaneetha Krishna Pandian Vs State by

Vignesh Kumar @ Vikki Vs the State Rep by Its

S.v.Chandran Vs P.Chandran

P.Velmurugan Vs the State Rep by