Partly allowed

Punithakumar v. State Rep by

Madras HC25 Oct 2021CRL MP/10817/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a relaxation of conditions imposed on anticipatory bail. The daily reporting requirement was reduced to appear only on Mondays until the charge sheet is filed. Hydrophobia absence conditions remain unaltered.

What did the court decide?

The condition imposed by the earlier order dated 08.12.2020 regarding daily appearance is modified to require appearance only on Mondays until filing of the charge sheet and on all hearing dates there

Punithakumar Vs State Rep by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Monday, the Twenty Fifth day of October Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.10817 of 2021

¶7

IN CRL OP.13125/2020

¶8

PUNITHAKUMAR [ PETITIONER/ACCUSED ]

¶9

¶10

STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT (CRIME NO.17/2020)

¶11

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to relax the condition imposed in Crl.O.P.NO.13125/2020 on 08.12.2020 the petitioner shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m., until further orders by this Hon'ble Court.

¶12

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.L.GOVINDARAJ, Advocate for the Petitioner and of MR. A.GOPINATH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:-

¶13

Vide Order dated 08.12.2020, this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners on certain conditions. This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking relaxation of the conditions

¶14

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent, on instruction, submits that the petitioners have been complying with the conditions without fail.

¶15

In view of the above submission, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer as sought for by the petitioners could be acceded to.

¶16

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

¶17

Accordingly, the condition insofar as appearance as imposed by

¶18

order dated 08.12.2020 alone stands modified that till filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent police on every Monday at 10.30 a.m, and thereafter, the petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned court on each and every hearing dates at 10.30 a.m, until further orders. All other conditions remain unaltered.

¶19

-sd/-

¶20

25/10/2021

¶21

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶22

TRUE COPY

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)

¶24

High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶25

¶26

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.III, VELLORE, VELLORE DISTRICT.

¶27

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VELLORE [FOR INFORMATION]

¶28

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶29

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT.

¶30

+1 C.C. to M/S.L.GOVINDARAJ Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.11764

¶31

Order

¶32

in CRL MP.10817/2021 in CRL OP.13125/2020 Date :25/10/2021

¶33

From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format

¶34

RW 29/10/2021

¶35

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

Punithakumar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punithakumar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Usha Vs the State Rep.by

Prabhu Arun Kanna Vs the Inspector of Police

J.Arockia Raj Vs State Rep by

S.P.Natarajan Vs State by Inspector of Police

Manoharan Vs Dakshinamurthy

T.T.Manickam Vs the State Rep by Its