Partly allowed

Perumal v. State Rep by

Madras HC23 Sept 2021CRL MP/9693/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's petition to relax the bail condition requiring daily reporting until a fixed time. The court modified the condition so the petitioner appears only as required for interrogation, while keeping other conditions intact based on consistent compliance.

What did the court decide?

The daily reporting condition imposed on 02.08.2021 is modified; the petitioner shall appear only as required for interrogation on receipt of summons.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Thursday, the Twenty Third day of September Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT

¶3

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶4

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.9693 of 2021 CRL.O.P.No.13329 OF 2021

¶5

PERUMAL

¶6

[ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶7

¶8

STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ROYAKOTTAI POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT. CRIME NO. 153 OF 2021.

¶9

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court will be pleased to relax the condition imposed on the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders on the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.13329 of 2021 dated 02.08.2021.

¶10

Order: This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. V.SAKKARAPANI, Advocate for the Petitioner and of MR. A.GOPINATH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:-

¶11

Vide Order dated 02.08.2021, this Court had enlarged the petitioner on bail on certain conditions. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking relaxation of the conditions.

¶12

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent, on instruction, submits that the petitioner has been complying with the conditions without fail.

¶13

In view of the above submission, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer as sought for by the petitioner could be acceded to.

¶14

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

¶15

Accordingly, the condition insofar as appearance as imposed by order dated 02.08.2021 alone stands modified and the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation on receipt of summons. All other conditions remain unaltered.

¶16

-sd/-

¶17

23/09/2021

¶18

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

¶19

TRUE COPY

¶20

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO

¶21

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DENKANIKOTTAI.

¶22

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT (FOR INFORMATION).

¶23

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ROYAKOTTAI POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.

¶24

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶25

C.C. to M/S. V.SAKKARAPANI Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶26

Order

¶27

¶28

CRL. MP.9693/2021 in CRL.O.P.13329/2021

¶29

Date :23/09/2021

¶30

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

¶31

INBA-05/10/2021

¶32

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

Perumal v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Perumal 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

Kannan Vs the State Rep by

Syed Nasrullah Vs the State Rep by

K.Gowrishankar Vs State Rep by

V.Allimuthu, M/a 55 Years, Vs M.Govindarajulu, M/a 46 Years

Z.Vinoth, Vs Union of India

K.Bakthavatchalam, Vs N.Thirugnanasampatham