Allowed

S.Sridharan v. the State

Madras HC8 Feb 2022CRL MP/14207/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Misc Petition sought relaxation of bail conditions requiring monthly appearance at the Trial Court. The High Court, noting the first petitioner's Stage IV prostate cancer and the second petitioner's caretaker role, relaxed the conditions of appearance. However, the petitioners were directed to cooperate with the disposal of the main appeal.

What did the court decide?

Condition requiring appearance before the Trial Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. is totally relaxed; petitioners directed to cooperate in disposal of main appeal.

S.Sridharan Vs the State — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Eighth day of February Two Thousand Twenty Two

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice G. CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.14207 of 2021

¶7

IN CRL A.398/2019

¶8

1 S.SRIDHARAN [ PETITIONERS / APPELLANTS ]

¶9

2 S.HEMAMBUJAM

¶10

¶11

THE STATE [ RESPONDENT ] REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI/EOW/CHENNAI.

¶12

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court will be pleased to Relax the condition imposed(ie) directing the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court on first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. passed in Crl.M.P.No.8656/2019 in Crl.A.No.398/2019 dated 02/07/2019.

¶13

Order: This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.N.RAMAKRISHNAN, Advocate for the Petitioner and of MR.E.RAJ THILAK, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:-

¶14

This petition is filed to relax the condition imposed on the petitioners to appear before the Trial Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m., passed in Crl.M.P.No.8656 of 2019 in Crl.A.No.398 of 2019 dated 02.07.2019.

¶15

2.Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the first petitioner was diagnosed with the Stage IV Prostrate Cancer and he was admitted in hospital for treatment. His medical condition is deteriorating and he is bedridden. As a wife, second petitioner is taking care of his husband, first petitioner. Therefore, they are not able to comply with the condition imposed and pray for relaxation.

¶16

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

¶17

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

¶18

4.Considered the reasons stated that the first petitioner is suffering from Stage IV Prostrate Cancer and that is evidenced from the medical certificate produced by the petitioners and the fact that, wife has to take care of her husband, this Court allows the petition in CRL.M.P.No.14207 of 2021 and condition imposed on the petitioners to appear before the Trial Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. in Crl.M.P.No.8656 of 2019 in Crl.A.No.398 of 2019 dated 02.07.2019 is totally relaxed. However, petitioners are directed to co-operate in the disposal of the main appeal whenever appeal is taken for hearing.

¶19

-sd/-

¶20

08/02/2022

¶21

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

¶22

TRUE COPY

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI/EOW/CHENNAI.

¶26

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶27

C.C. to M/S WARON AND SAI RAMS Advocate on payment of necessary charges

Order

CRL MP.14207/2021

CRL A.398/2019

Date :08/02/2022

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

¶35

INBA~10/02/2022

¶36

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

S.Sridharan v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sridharan v. the State

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

Govinda Prasad Tiwari Vs State Rep.by

Balasubramaniyam Vs Paneer Selvam(Died)

M.Shanthi Vs M.Poornima

S.M.K.Subbulakshmi Vs Kalaiselvi

V.Arumugam Vs State Rep by

R.Murugan Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police