Partly allowed

Paul Prakash Kumar v. State Rep by

Madras HC28 Mar 2022CRL MP/3364/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition to modify a condition of anticipatory bail requiring payment to a government hospital due to non-compliance. Instead, a separate petition was directed to comply with conditions within one week to avoid vacation of bail.

What did the court decide?

One week time granted to comply with the attachment condition; otherwise, anticipatory bail will be vacated.

Paul Prakash Kumar Vs State Rep by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.M.P.No.3364, 3365 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.8425 of 2021

¶2

Crl.M.P.No.3364 and 3365 of 2022 in

¶3

Crl.O.P.No.8425 of 2021

¶4

S. KANNAMMAL, J.

¶5

These Petitions are filed to modify the condition imposed in para (6)(a) of the order dated 12.05.2021 in Crl.O.P.No.8425 of 2021, on the file of this Court, as the petitioner's income is only based on the vehicle which was seized by the repondent police, and further to extend the time to execute the bond and to comply with other conditions imposed in the above order.

¶6

It is the case of the Respondent police that the petitioner and other accused persons were found in possession of banned tobacco products worth about Rs.8,96,400/-.

¶7

When the petitioner moved for anticipatory bail, this Court granted the same with a condition that the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees one lakh only) in favour of “The Medical Superintendent / Authorised Officer, Government Hospital, Erode District” within a period fifteen days from

¶8

the date of receipt of copy of the order. But the Petitioner has not complied

¶9

Page No:1/4

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶11

Crl.M.P.No.3364, 3365 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.8425 of 2021

¶12

with the conditions imposed.

¶13

Without complying with the conditions, now, the petitioner has filed

¶14

the petition for modifying the condition, stating that he is not able to mobilize Rs.1,00,000/- to pay in favour of “The Medical Superintendent / Authorised Officer, Government Hospital, Erode District”.

¶15

This Court has ordered Aniticipartory Bail on 12.05.2021 with the condition that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to “The Medical Superintendent / Authorised Officer, Government Hospital, Erode District” within a period of fifteen days. As the Petitioner has not complied with the above order now he seeking for modification to exempt or reduce the amount ordered to pay to the Goernment Hospital at Erode, which is not acceptable. When the petitioner granted anticipatory bail he had accepted and admitted to pay the amount to the hospital, but now, after ten months without complying the conditions seeking for modification is nothing but abuse of process of law.

¶16

In such a view of the matter, seeking modification in the order of this

¶17

Page No:2/4

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Crl.M.P.No.3364, 3365 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.8425 of 2021

¶20

Court in

¶21

Court in Crl.M.P.No.3364 of 2022 is dismissed. However, considering the

¶22

Petition in Crl.M.P.No.3365 of 2022 , one week time is granted to the Petitioner to comply with the conditions from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order. Otherwise, the anticipatory bail granted by this Court on 12.5.2021 will be automatically vacated and the respondent police shall take necessary action to secure the petitioner/accused for judicial remand.

¶23

28.03.2022

¶24

ggs

¶25

Note: Issue order copy on 29.03.2022

¶26

Page No:3/4

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Crl.M.P.No.3364, 3365 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.8425 of 2021

¶29

S. KANNAMMAL, J

¶30

ggs

¶31

Crl.M.P.No.3364 & 3365 of 2022 in Crl.O.P.No.8425 of 2021

¶32

28.03.2022

¶33

Page No:4/4

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Paul Prakash Kumar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paul Prakash Kumar 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

Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs Annapoorani

V.Indhirani Vs a.Rajaammal

The Manager Vs Shanmugasundaram

Dr.v.Sivakumar Vs Mrs. G. Ambujam[Decs]

Sm Narayanan Vs Rp Jaganathan (Died)

A.Suryanarayana Vs a.Harnath