Partly allowed

N.Jeevanantham v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC27 Apr 2019CRL OP(MD)/6060/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an Investigating Officer accused of temple idol theft, sought relaxation of a bail condition to sign daily with police. Court partially allowed petition, setting aside an impugned order and modifying the reporting condition to appear weekly at the Idol Wing Camp Office, Chennai.

What did the court decide?

Order in Crl.M.P.No.288 of 2019 set aside; 2nd condition modified to require appearance every Monday at 10:00 a.m. at Idol Wing Camp Office, Chennai.

N.Jeevanantham Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.04.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6060 of 2019

¶6

: Petitioner/Accused Vs.

¶7

N.Jeevanantham

¶8

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Idol Wing Police, CID Camp, Trichy, Palavoor Police Station. [Crime No.114 of 2005]

¶9

: Respondent/Complainant

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439(1)(B) Cr.P.C to set aside the order passed by the lower Court in Crl.M.P.No.288 of 2019 in C.C.No.11 of 2017 dated on 26.03.2019 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, for the reasons stated and to relax the condition imposed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, in Crime No.114 of 2005.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Infant Dinesh For Respondent : Mr.Chellapandian Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.V.Neelakandan

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.288 of 2019 in C.C.No.11 of 2017 dated on 26.03.2019 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, for the reasons stated and to relax the condition imposed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, in Crime No.114 of 2005.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was an Investigating Officer in Crime No.114 of 2005, wherein the accusation is all about theft of idols in the temples. Later it came to light that the petitioner himself was part of the crime and accordingly he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. He moved the trial court and was released on bail on condition to sign before the respondent police daily at Chennai. The petitioner now seeks relaxation of the condition.

¶16

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the investigation in the matter has not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been completed and atleast four idols are still required to be recovered and he opposed total relaxation of the condition.

¶17

¶18

After weighing rival submissions, this Court sets aside the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, in Crl.M.P.No.288 of 2019 in C.C.No.11 of 2017 dated 26.03.2019 and modifies the 2nd condition imposed in the order dated 26.12.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1313 of 2018 in C.C.No.11 of 2017 and directs the petitioner shall appear before the Idol Wing Camp Office, Chennai, every Monday at 10.00 a.m., until further orders. 6. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶20

// True Copy //

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶22

¶23

1.The Inspector of Police, Idol Wing Police, CID Camp, Palavoor Police Station, Trichy.

¶24

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

¶25

+1cc to Mr.L.INFANT DINESH, Advocate, SR.No. 64319

¶26

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6060 of 2019 27.04.2019

¶27

SM KK/SAR/13.05.2019/ 2P- 4C

¶28

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

N.Jeevanantham v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Jeevanantham 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

Veeramani, Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Muthusamy, Vs the District Collector

M/S.Vedha Spinning Mills P Ltd. Vs the Superintending Engineer

T. Ajan Babu Vs Lekha @ Rekha W/O.Nirmalan

Pandi, S/O.Duraisamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Valarmathy Vs the Sub Collector