Allowed

A.Ashvathaman v. State Rep. by

Madras HC10 Sept 2024CRL MP/12381/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an undertaking to refrain from comments on a case, the Court permitted modification of bail conditions requiring the petitioner to file an affidavit of non-commentating until the trial concludes.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file an affidavit within two weeks stating he will not make any comments pertaining to this case until trial is completed.

A.Ashvathaman Vs State Rep. by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.M.P.No.12381 of 2024 in Crl.O.P.No.17907 of 2024

¶2

Crl.M.P.No,12381 of 2024 in Crl.O.P.No.17907 of 2024

¶3

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶4

The petitioner has filed this petition to modify the conditions imposed in paragraph No.6(c) in Crl.O.P.No.17907 of 2024 dated 01.08.2024, passed by this Court.

¶5

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner regarding the supposed illusion that terrorism has developed within the Muslim community. In fact, the petitioner has merely narrated a sequence of events that occurred, and the main accused, who has been involved in the offense for the past 29 years, has not yet been arrested. Apart from this, the petitioner has not made any allegations against any particular religion.

¶6

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that, at the time of availing anticipatory bail, the petitioner agreed to provide an undertaking affidavit. However, contrary to that commitment, the petitioner 1\4

¶7

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

¶8

Crl.M.P.No,12381 of 2024 in Crl.O.P.No.17907 of 2024

¶9

now seeks to avoid compliance with the said condition, which is impermissible. Therefore, the Government Advocate raised an objection to

¶10

the modification of the condition. Furthermore, the prosecution also presented the speech made by the petitioner on 07.07.2024 as evidence.

¶11

Upon perusal of the said speech, it appears that about five persons participated in the meeting, during which they all discussed the pending proceedings, particularly the non-arrest of the main accused. However, from the FIR allegations, no specific accusations have been made against each individual. While the discussions involved all the members, this remains a matter for trial.

¶12

Considering the submissions from both sides, this Court is inclined to modify the conditions imposed in Crl.O.P.No.17907 of 2024 dated 01.08.2024.

¶13

The petitioner is directed to file an affidavit stating that he will not

¶14

2\4

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.M.P.No,12381 of 2024 in Crl.O.P.No.17907 of 2024

¶17

make any comments pertaining to this case until trial completed. The petitioner must comply with these conditions within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

10.09.2024

¶19

rri

¶20

Note: Issue order copy by 11.09.2024.

¶21

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶22

rri

¶23

3\4

¶24

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

¶25

Crl.M.P.No,12381 of 2024 in Crl.O.P.No.17907 of 2024

¶26

Crl.M.P.No.12381 of 2024 in Crl.O.P.No.17907 of 2024

¶27

10.09.2024

¶28

4\4

¶29

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

A.Ashvathaman v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Ashvathaman 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

Kishtappa Reddy Vs Raghavan(Died)

K.Sudha Vs Kaliammal (Died) 1. Nachiammal

R. Gopinath Vs K.S. Venkataraman

Palanisamy(Died) Vs Periyasamy Gounder

Shenbagavalli Vs Tamil Nadu State

Prabhu Vs State Rep by