Partly allowed

Sridevi v. State

Madras HC3 Nov 2020CRL OP/17207/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court relaxed a bail condition requiring petitioners to appear before police every Sunday on a specific date and time. The petitioners, an elderly couple, sought the modification due to inconvenience of traveling from Kanchipuram to Vepery, though they were complying with conditions. The court modified the condition.

What did the court decide?

The condition to appear every Sunday at 10:30 a.m. was relaxed to appear when required for interrogation.

Sridevi Vs State — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.17207 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 03.11.2020

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.17207 of 2020 1. Sridevi W/o Suresh Kumar 2. Suresh Kumar S/o Sivaprakash ... Petitioners Vs. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, CCB-2 ( Land Grabbing) Vepery, Chennai (Crime No.193 of 2019) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439(1) (b) of of Criminal Procedure Code to completely relax the condition imposed on the petitioner to appear before the Respondent on every Sunday at 10:30 a.m vide order passed in C.M.P.No.994 of 2020 dated 24.02.2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.S. Haja Mahideen Gisthi For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

¶8

1/4

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

Crl.O.P.No.17207 of 2020

¶11

O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶12

The respondent police has registered a case against the

¶13

petitioners for the offences U/s 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC and the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.01.2020 and subsequently the petitioners filed a petition in C.M.P.No.994 of 2020 for grant of bail on 13.01.2020 before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee and they were also granted bail on 24.02.2020 with the condition to report before the Respondent police on every Sunday at 10:30 a.m and they should also execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- each.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

¶15

petitioners are complying with the conditions. He would further submit

¶16

that the petitioners are husband and wife and they are more than 50 years old and residing in Kanchipuram District and reporting before the respondent is causing much inconvenience to them. Hence he seeks to modify the condition.

¶17

2/4

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.17207 of 2020

¶20

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit

¶21

that the petitioners are complying with the conditions regularly and they were absent only during the Lockdown period.

¶22

Considering the submissions made by the learned

¶23

counsel appearing on both sides, this Court is inclined to relax the condition imposed on the petitioners in C.M.P.No.994 of 2020 dated 24.02.2020 to the effect that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as an when required for interrogation. The other conditions remain unaltered. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is ordered. 03.11.2020 smn To 1. The Inspector of Police, CCB-2 ( Land Grabbing) Vepery, Chennai 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶24

3/4

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.17207 of 2020

¶27

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

¶28

smn

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.17207 of 2020
03.11.2020

¶30

4/4

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in

Sridevi v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sridevi 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

Mayavel Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police

Bhuvaneswari Vs State Rep.by

Sundar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

A.Shanmugam, Sole Accused Vs the State Rep.by

Jeeva Vs State Rep.by

Muthukumar Vs State by