Partly allowed

Arivazhagan @ Arivu v. State by

Madras HC27 Jan 2021CRL MP/684/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking to relax the daily reporting conditions imposed on the petitioner. The court relaxed the requirement to report every day and directed the petitioner to appear only on Mondays.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent police only on every Monday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

Arivazhagan @ Arivu Vs State by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Twenty Seventh day of January Two Thousand Twenty

¶4

One

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr Justice V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶7

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.684 of 2021

¶8

IN CRL OP.18054/2020 1 ARIVAZHAGAN @ ARIVU [ PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ] Vs 1 STATE BY [ RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAKURICHI POLICE STATION, KALLAKURICHI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.2025/2020.

¶9

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court will be pleased to relax the condition that the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. until further orders imposed on the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.18054 of 2020 dated 18.11.2020.

¶10

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

¶11

This application is filed to relax the condition imposed by this Court against the petitioner directing him to report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 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.O.P.No.18054 of 2020 dated 18.11.2020.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the condition already imposed on the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.18054

¶15

of 2020 dated 18.11.2020, is relaxed, however the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent police on every Monday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶16

This petition is ordered accordingly.

¶17

-sd/-

¶18

27/01/2021

¶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.I, KALLAKURICHI.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
VILLUPURAM [FOR INFORMATION]
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KALLAKURICHI POLICE STATION,
KALLAKURICHI DISTRICT.
C.C. to M/S. R.PRABUDOSS Advocate on payment of necessary
charges

¶21

Order in CRL MP.684/2021 in CRL OP.18054/2020 Date :27/01/2021

¶22

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

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MN-04/02/2021

Arivazhagan @ Arivu v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arivazhagan @ Arivu v. State 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

Selvam Vs State Rep by

A.Gopi Vs State Rep by

Yuvaraj Vs the State Rep.by

Ravikumar Vs State Rep. by

L.Murugasamy Vs State Rep by

Iyyappan Vs State Represented by