Allowed

R.Pugazhendhi v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Madras HC25 Apr 2022CRL MP/4903/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail proceedings, the petitioner sought to relax the daily reporting condition imposed by the lower court. The court allowed the petition, directing the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer only when required for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Allowed relaxation of daily reporting condition; directed petitioner to appear before Investigating Officer as required.

R.Pugazhendhi Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Monday, the Twenty Fifth day of April Two Thousand Twenty Two

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Dr Justice G. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.4903 of 2022

¶7

IN CRL OP.2586/2022

¶8

R.PUGAZHENDHI [ PETITIONER/ACCUSED ]

¶9

¶10

THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DCB, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT CRIME NO.5/2022

¶11

[ RESPONDENT ]

¶12

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to relax the condition imposed that the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders, in order dated 07.02.2022 in Crl.O.P.No. 2586 of 2022 in order dated 25.03.2022 in Crl.M.P.No. 3541 of 2022.

¶13

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. S. ANIL SANDEEP, Advocate for the petitioner and of M/S.S.SANTHOSH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:-

¶14

This petition has been filed to relax the conditions imposed in Crl.MP.No.3541 of 2022 in Crl.OP.No.2586 of 2022 dated 25.03.2022.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶16

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police has submitted that the petitioner is scrupulously complying with the condition without any deviation. However, the respondent has not yet completed the investigation.

¶17

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

¶18

Recording the same, the petition for relaxation is allowed and further the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required for an interrogation.

¶19

-sd/-

¶20

25/04/2022

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, PONNERI, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

¶25

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶26

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DCB, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

¶27

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶28

+3 C.C. to M/S. S. ANIL SANDEEP Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO. 6279

¶29

Order

¶30

in CRL MP.4903/2022

¶31

in CRL OP.2586/2022 Date :25/04/2022

¶32

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

¶33

RW 29/04/2022

¶34

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

R.Pugazhendhi v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Pugazhendhi v. the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murugan @ Velu Vs Station House Officer

Arumugam Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Joy Thomas T.A. Vs Shri. Shankar Jiwal, IPS

Sundara Pandiaya Raja Vs State Rep by

Mohammed Faisal Vs State Represented by

M/S Searock Container Terminal Vs the State Rep by