Dismissed

Rathinasabapathy v. the State Repby

Madras HC25 Feb 2022CRL MP/1682/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition sought to modify a bail condition due to the petitioners being under COVID-19 home quarantine. The court rejected the submission that hospitalization made compliance impossible, finding the reason unsatisfactory and dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition to modify the bail condition imposed in Crl.O.P.No.25926 of 2021 was dismissed.

Rathinasabapathy Vs the State Repby — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Twenty Fifth day of February Two Thousand Twenty Two

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. PONGIAPPAN

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1682 of 2022

¶7

¶8

1 RATHINASABAPATHY [ PETITIONER ]

¶9

2 SIVARAMAKRISHNAN

¶10

3 MEENA RATHINASABAPATHY

¶11

¶12

THE STATE REPBY [ RESPONDENT ] THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, G3 KILPAUK POLICE STATION, CHENNAI-600 010 CR NO.139/2019

¶13

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court will be pleased to Modify the condition imposed in Para 6 of order passed in Crl.OP.25926 dated 29.12.2021.

¶14

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

¶15

This petition has been filed to modify the condition imposed in para 6 of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.25926 of 2021 dated 29.12.2021.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the 1^st petitioner was infected with COVID 19 from 13.01.2022 admitted in hospital and later he was discharged and all the petitioners were in home quarantine. Hence, they could not execute the sureties in time.

¶17

Heard the learned Government (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police.

¶18

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

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not complied the condition imposed by this Court, otherwise the reason stated by the petitioners in respect of modifying the condition is not satisfactory, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

¶20

-sd/-

¶21

25/02/2022

¶22

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

¶23

TRUE COPY

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

1 THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE NO.II, EGMORE, CHENNAI

¶27

2 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI(FOR INFORMATION)

¶28

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, G3 KILPAUK POLICE STATION, CHENNAI-600 010

¶29

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶30

C.C. to M/S A.M.AMUTHA GANESH Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶31

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

¶32

RVR 03/03/2022

¶33

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

Rathinasabapathy v. the State Repby

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathinasabapathy v. the State Repby

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

T.Rahul Anand Vs Inspector of Police

Govappa @ Oovappa Vs the State Rep by Inspector of Police

Rajesh Singh Vs State Rep by

Vinoj Selvam Vs State Rep by

Ragul Vs State Rep.by

Jananayagan Vs the State Rep by