Allowed

Ragavendran v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Oct 2019CRL OP(MD)/15525/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners accused in Crime No.418 of 2018 challenged the condition to deposit Rs.10,000/- each as cash surety imposed in an earlier anticipatory bail order. The court held the condition onerous relative to the damage value and deleted it, extending the surrender timeline.

What did the court decide?

Deletion of the condition to deposit Rs.10,000/- each as cash surety; extension of surrender timeline by two weeks.

Ragavendran Vs The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.O.P(MD). No.15525 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 24.10.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P(MD). No.15525 of 2019

¶7

1.Ragavendran 2.Radhakrishnan 3.Vaithilingam 4.Sudalai@Subash 5.Ramakrishnan ... Petitioners/Petitioners Vs

¶8

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Shenkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.418 of (*)2018 ) ... Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. to modify the condition imposed in Crl.M.P.No.10214 of 2019, dated 15.10.2019, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli for condition imposed on the petitioners have to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- each before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Shencottah.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Selvakumar

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.A.Robinson Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This petition has been filed to modify the condition imposed in Crl.M.P.No.10214 of 2019, dated 15.10.2019, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, for condition imposed on the petitioners have to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- each before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Shencottah

¶14

2.The petitioners are accused in Crime No.418 of (*)2018 , registered on the file of the Shenkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli District. They filed petition for anticipatory bail. It was granted. But then, the petitioners were directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- each as cash surety.

¶15

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

¶16

1/2

¶17

Crl.O.P(MD). No.15525 of 2019

¶18

3.The petitioners' counsel points out that even according to the de-facto complainant, a value of the damage is only Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, imposing the condition to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/each is really onerous. Therefore, the said condition stands deleted.

¶19

4.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The time for surrender and execution of sureties is extended by two more weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶21

(*)Amended as per order of this Hon'ble Court Dated 26.11.2019

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

sji To

¶27

(*) to be substituted the order already despatched on 07/11/2019

¶28

1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli

¶29

2.The Inspector of Police, Shenkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶30

Copy to:

¶31

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.S.Selvakumar,Advocate, SR.No.18289

¶33

Crl.O.P(MD). No.15525 of 2019 24.10.2019

¶34

JMN(07.11.2019) 2P : 5C TR(29.11.2019) 2P 5C

¶35

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

¶36

2/2

Ragavendran v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ragavendran v. The Inspector of Police

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

Annakodi Vs the Inspector of Police

R. Indumathi Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Sakthivel Vs the Inspector of Police

R. Sivaraman Vs the Inspector of Police

Renganathan @ Rengaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

L. Ramsankar Vs The Inspector of Police