Partly allowed

Senthil Kumar v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC12 Feb 2021CRL MP/1363/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal miscellaneous petition filed to relax reporting conditions imposed on an accused during the trial. The court relaxed the mandatory appearance obligation but directed the accused to appear for interrogation as required by the investigation agency.

What did the court decide?

Relaxed the condition to appear every Monday and Friday but directed the petitioner to appear as required for interrogation.

Senthil Kumar Vs the State Rep.by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Twelfth day of February Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1363 of 2021

¶7

IN CRL OP.7324/2020

¶8

SENTHIL KUMAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶9

Vs THE STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING, NAMAKKAL - 637 001. CRIME NO.1 OF 2019.

¶10

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court will be pleased to relax the condition i.e, to appear before the respondent police on every Monday and Friday at 10.30 a.m. imposed in Crl.M.P.No.6864/2020 in Crl.O.P.No.7324 of 2020 order dated 10.11.2020

¶11

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. SUNDER MOHAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR. S.KARTHIKEYAN, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:-

¶12

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶13

This application is filed to relax the condition imposed by this Court against the petitioner directing him to report before the respondent police every Monday and Friday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the petitioner is regularly complying with the conditions imposed by this Court in Crl.M.P.No.6864 of 2020 in Crl.O.P.No.7324 of 2020, dated 10.11.2020.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the condition already imposed on the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.6864 of 2020 in Crl.O.P.No.7324 of 2020, dated 10.11.2020 is relaxed, however the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ police as and when required for interrogation.

¶17

This petition is ordered accordingly.

¶18

-sd/-

¶19

12/02/2021
This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried
into execution by all concerned
TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE SPECIAL JUDGE,
TNPID ACT, COIMBATORE.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING,
NAMAKKAL - 637 001.
+1C.C. to M/S. SUNDER MOHAN Advocate on payment of necessary
charges SR NO.1566
Order
in
CRL MP.1363/2021
in
CRL OP.7324/2020
Date :12/02/2021
From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified
copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format
MK:24/02/2021

¶20

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

Senthil Kumar v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthil Kumar v. the 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

Murali Vs State Rep.by

Ayyadurai @ Ettupatti Vs State by

Sarathi Vs State Rep by

Dhandapani Vs State Rep.by

The State Rep.by Vs Priya, Aged About 26 Years

Karthik Vs State Rep. by