Allowed

Thirunavukkarasu v. State Rep by

Madras HC21 Jan 2021CRL MP/402/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted an intersecting criminal miscellaneous petition to relax the reporting condition imposed on the accused in a prior bail order, directing them to appear as and when required instead of on fixed Mondays.

What did the court decide?

The condition to report every Monday at 10.30 a.m. was relaxed; the petitioner is directed to appear before the police as and when required.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Twenty First day of January Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.402 of 2021

¶7

IN CRL OP.19044/2020

¶8

1 THIRUNAVUKKARASU [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 ] 2 KODANDAN

¶9

Vs STATE REP BY, [ RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BARUR POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT

¶10

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to relax the condition that the petitioners shall report before the respondent police every Monday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders imposed by this Hon'ble Court Crl.O.P.NO.19044/2020 dated 07.12.2020.

¶11

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. E.KANNADASAN, 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 petition is filed to relax the condition that the petitioners shall report before the respondent police every Monday at 10.30 a.m. Until further orders imposed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.19044 of 2020 dated 07.12.2020.

¶14

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

3.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.O.P.No.19044 of 2020 dated 07.12.2020.

¶16

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the condition already imposed on the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.19044 of 2020 dated 07.12.2020, is relaxed, however, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent police as and when required.

¶17

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

¶18

This petition is ordered accordingly.

¶19

-sd/21/01/2021

¶20

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 DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, POCHAMPALLI.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
KRISHNAGIRI [FOR INFORMATION]
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
BARUR POLICE STATION,
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.
C.C. to M/S. E.KANNADASAN Advocate on payment of necessary
charges
Order
in
CRL MP.402/2021
in
CRL OP.19044/2020
Date :21/01/2021

¶21

From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format cs 05/02/2021

¶22

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

Thirunavukkarasu v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thirunavukkarasu 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

Kumar Vs State Rep.by

Moorthy Vs the State Rep by

V.Kamaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Venkatesh Vs State Rep by Inspector of Police

A.Saravana Kumar Vs the State Rep Its

V.Ramamoorthy Vs State Rep.by