Allowed

Richard v. State

Madras HC18 Sept 2019CRL OP/24932/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that imposing a cash deposit condition while granting bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is not legally permissible. Consequently, the court set aside this specific condition imposed by the lower Magistrate. The remainder of the lower order remains unaltered. (overruled the lower court's condition)

What did the court decide?

The condition requiring deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- each was set aside and the bail order modified accordingly.

Richard Vs State — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.24932 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.09.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

CRL.O.P. No.24932 of 2019

¶7

1.Richard
2.Amali
3.Rathinam ... Petitioners
Vs.
The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Krishnagiri District,
(Crime No.10 of 2019) ... Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439(1)(b) Cr.P.C. to modify the condition imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II (FAC), Krishnagiri, in Crl.M.P.No.5382 of 2019 by an order dated 13.08.2019, by modifying that they shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each as cash deposit.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.M.P.Saravanan For Respondent : Thiru.T.Shunmugarajeswaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition is filed to modify the condition imposed in

¶10

Crl.M.P.No.5382 of 2019 dated 13.08.2019, on the file of the learned Judicial

¶11

Magistrate-II (FAC), Krishnagiri, whereby each of the petitioners were directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each before the concerned Magistrate to the credit of

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

1/4

¶14

Crl.O.P.No.24932 of 2019

¶15

Crime No.10 of 2019.

¶16

Before the Court below, the said Crl.M.P. was filed seeking bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C., and the petitioners were released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II (FAC), Krishnagiri. Unfortunately, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed the petitioners to deposit each a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶17

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that imposition

¶18

of such condition while granting bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is not legally permissible.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the

¶20

respondent police also confirms the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶21

In view of the above legal position, the condition imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II (FAC), Krishnagiri, while granting bail under Section 167 (2) (a) (ii) of CrPC., directing each of the petitioners to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- is held not sustainable. Accordingly, the said condition is set aside. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II (FAC), Krishnagiri, is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above. In other respects, the said order dated 13.08.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5382 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Krishnagiri (Judicial Magistrate No.II (FAC)), Krishnagiri, shall remain unaltered.

¶22

This petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

18.09.2019

¶24

msm

¶25

Note:Issue order copy on 19.09.2019.

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

2/4

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.24932 of 2019

¶29

¶30

1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Krishnagiri District, (Crime No.10 of 2019)

¶31

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

¶32

The Judicial Magistrate-II (FAC)), Krishnagiri.

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶34

3/4

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.24932 of 2019

¶36

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶37

msm

¶38

CRL.O.P. No.24932 of 2019

¶39

18.09.2019

¶40

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶41

4/4

Richard v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Richard v. State

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

L.Parthasarathy Vs State by

Sathiyakumar Vs the State

U.S. Kavin (Minor) Rep by His Vs the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Chennai

Pandiyan Vs State by

Nagalingam Vs State Rep by

S.Navaneetha Krishna Pandian Vs State by