Disposed

Moorthy v. the State Rep by

Madras HC20 Jan 2021CRL MP/236/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition sought relaxation of bail conditions requiring reporting to the police on first and third Mondays. The court held that while the fixed interval was relaxed, the petitioner must appear as and when required.

What did the court decide?

The condition directing the petitioner to report to the respondent police on first and third Mondays of every month is relaxed; he must appear as and when required.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Twentieth day of January Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.236 of 2021

¶7

IN CRL OP.12913/2020 MOORTHY [ PETITIONER ] Vs THE STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, E-5, INDUR POLICE STATION, CHENNAI. (CRIME NO.1108/2020)

¶8

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court will be pleased to relax the conditions imposed on petitioner that he shall report before the respondent police on first and third Monday of every Month at 10.30 a.m. until further orders in Crl.M.P.No.6781/2020 in Crl.O.P.No.12913/20 dated 09.11.2020.

¶9

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.M.MOHAMED RIYAS, Advocate for the petitioner and of S.KARTHIKEYAN, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents the court made the following order:-

¶10

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶11

This petition is filed to relax the condition imposed by this Court against the petitioner directing him to report before the respondent police on first and third Monday of every month at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

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.6781 of 2020 in Crl.O.P.No.12913 of 2020 dated 09.11.2020.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the condition already imposed on the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.6781

¶15

of 2020 in Crl.O.P.No.12913 of 2020 dated 09.11.2020, is relaxed, however the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent police as and when required.

¶16

This petition is ordered accordingly.

¶17

-sd/-

¶18

20/01/2021

¶19

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

¶20

TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
NO.II, DHARMAPURI.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
DHARMAPURI [FOR INFORMATION].
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
E-5, INDUR POLICE, STATION,
DHARMAPURI.
C.C. to M/S.M.MOHAMED RIYAS Advocate on payment of necessary
charges
Order
in
CRL MP.236/2021
in
CRL OP.12913/2020
Date :20/01/2021

¶21

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

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MN-01/02/2021

Moorthy v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moorthy 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

S.Parameswari Vs State Rep by

Samu @ Samannan Vs the State Rep by

Manimaran Vs State Represented by

P.Kannan Vs State Rep by

S.P.Vadevel Vs State Rep by

Gokul Raj Vs the State of Tamilnadu