Allowed

P.Muthupandy @ Ragul v. State Rep by Its

Madras HC2 Feb 2021CRL MP/8991/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition sought relaxation of a bail condition requiring daily police reporting. The court, finding the petitioner regularly complied with prior orders, ordered the condition to be relaxed, allowing the petitioner to appear as required.

What did the court decide?

The bail condition directing daily reporting to the police was relaxed; the petitioner is now to appear only as required.

P.Muthupandy @ Ragul Vs State Rep by Its — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Second day of February Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.8991 of 2020

¶7

IN CRL OP.14489/2020

¶8

P.MUTHUPANDY @ RAGUL [ PETITIONER ]

¶9

STATE REP BY ITS [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANCHI TALUK POLICE STATION, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT (CRIME NO. 2126/2020)

¶10

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court will be pleased to relax the bail condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30a.m until further orders modified made in Crl.MP.No.6696 of 2020 dated on 05/11/2020 in Crl.OP.No.14489 of 2020 dated 29/09/2020.

¶11

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. D.DAYALAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of M/S.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 petitioners directing them to report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶14

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) appearing for the State submitted that the petitioners are regularly complying with the conditions imposed by this Court in Crl.M.P.No.6696 of 2020 in Crl.O.P.No.14489 of 2020 dated 05.11.2020.

¶16

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the condition already imposed on the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.6696 of 2020 in Crl.O.P.No.14489 of 2020 dated 05.11.2020. is relaxed and 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/02/02/2021 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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, KANCHEEPURAM 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHENGALPATTU(FOR INFORMATION) 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLIE, KANCHI TALUK POLICE STATION, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT 5 THE OFFICER INCHARGE CUDDALORE OLD TOWN POLICE STATION, CUDDALORE. +1 C.C. to M/S. D.DAYALAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.1057

¶20

Order in CRL MP.8991/2020 in CRL OP.14489/2020 Date :02/02/2021

¶21

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

¶22

RVR 09/02/2021

¶23

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

P.Muthupandy @ Ragul v. State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Muthupandy @ Ragul v. State Rep by Its

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

Isakkimuthu Vs State Rep by

Ramesh Vs State by

Murugan Vs the State Rep by

Ayyamperumal Vs the State Represented by

Deepa Vs the Inspector of Police

Devi Vs State by