Disposed

Rahman Sadiq v. the Union of India

Madras HC10 Dec 2024CRL MP/16168/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.11 sought relaxation of a bail condition requiring him to reside at Chennai. The Court modified Condition No.(iii) to require daily appearance at Tiruvidaimaruthur Police Station Tuesday to Sunday and weekly appearance before the Special Court, Poonamallee on Mondays.

What did the court decide?

Condition No.(iii) of the bail order dated 25.07.2024 modified; petitioner may reside outside Chennai subject to specified appearance conditions.

Rahman Sadiq Vs the Union of India — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL MP. 16168 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-12-2024

¶2

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶3

CRL MP. 16168 of 2024 AND CRL A. 955 OF 2023

¶4

RAHMAN SADIQ S/O. MOHAMMED ISMAIL, NO.22, MIDDLE MUSLIM STREET, THIRUBHUVANAM, TIRUVIDAIMARUTHUR, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

¶5

APPELLANT(S)

¶6

¶7

THE UNION OF INDIA INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, KOCHI. IN RC.NO.6/2019/NIA/DLI.

¶8

RESPONDENT(S)

¶9

CRL A. 955 of 2023

¶10

RAHMAN SADIQ S/O. MOHAMMED ISMAIL, NO.22, MIDDLE MUSLIM STREET, THIRUBHUVANAM, TIRUVIDAIMARUTHUR, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

¶11

PETITIONER(S)

¶12

¶13

UNION OF INDIA S/O. MOHAMMED ISMAIL, NO.22, MIDDLE MUSLIM STREET, THIRUBHUVANAM, TIRUVIDAIMARUTHUR, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

¶14

APPELLANT(S)

¶15

CRL MP. 16168 of 2024

¶16

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

¶17

For Appellant(s): I.ABDUL BASITH K.NIZAMUDDDIN K MOHAMMED TAJUDEEN A.NOWFIL A.MOHAMMED ARIF KHAN

¶18

For Respondent(s):

¶19

MR.R.KARTHIKEYAN SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR NIA CASES OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶20

CRL A. 955 of 2023

¶21

For Petitioner(s)(s):

¶22

M/S. I.ABDUL BASITH K.NIZAMUDDDIN N.M.SHAJAHAN A.NOWFIL A.MOHAMMED ARIF KHAN

¶23

For Appellant(s):

¶24

MR.R.KARTHIKEYAN SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR NIA CASES COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble S.M.Subramaniam J)

¶27

The petition for relaxation has been instituted by the petitioner/Accused No.11 in Crl.A.No.955 of 2023.

¶28

2.Bail was granted by this Court in Crl.A.No.955 of 2023 on

¶29

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

¶30

25.07.2024.

¶31

3.Mr.I.Abdul Basith, learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that condition No.(iii) imposed by this Court is stringent and causing inconvenience to the petitioner to secure employment to lead his livelihood. He would submit that for the past four months, the petitioner is complying with Condition No.(iii) by residing at Chennai without any employment and therefore, the petitioner is finding it difficult to continue to reside at Chennai since the expenditure also huge.

¶32

4.Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Special Public Prosecutor would oppose by stating that in respect of other accused persons, the Courts directed to report before the Trial Court on every Monday on working days at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. Therefore, the same condition may be imposed in respect of the petitioner/A11.

¶33

5.An alternate suggestion is also putforth before this Court that the petitioner may be directed to appear before Tiruvidaimaruthur Police Station daily from Tuesday to Sunday at 10.30 a.m. and he shall appear before the Special Court, Poonamallee weekly once on every Monday at 10.30 a.m. We find that the pleadings in this regard seems to be reasonable and therefore, we are inclined to consider the petition.

¶34

6.Accordingly, the condition No.(iii) imposed in the bail order dated 25.07.2024 alone stands modified as follows:

¶35

“(iii) The petitioner/A11 is directed to appear before

¶36

Tiruvidaimaruthur Police Station daily from every Tuesday to Sunday at 10.30 a.m. and the petitioner shall appear before the Special Court, Poonamallee on every Monday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. Further, the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates until further orders.”

¶37

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

¶38

disposed of.

¶39

7.With the above direction, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of.

¶40

(S.M. SUBRAMANIAM J.) (M.JOTHIRAMAN J.) 10-12-2024

¶41

CRL MP. 16168 of 2024

¶42

¶43

THE UNION OF INDIA INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, KOCHI. IN RC.NO.6/2019/NIA/DLI.

¶44

CRL A. 955 of 2023

¶45

UNION OF INDIA S/O. MOHAMMED ISMAIL, NO.22, MIDDLE MUSLIM STREET, THIRUBHUVANAM, TIRUVIDAIMARUTHUR, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

¶46

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

Rahman Sadiq v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahman Sadiq v. the Union of India

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

Dinesh Kumar Vs the Stat,E Represented by

A.M. Abdul Latheef, Rep. by Vs 1. the A.T. for Forfeited

Miruthula Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mohamed Faruk @ Faruk Vs Union of India Represented by

Sumaiyabanu Vs the Secretary to Govt

Eswaran Vs the State Represented by Its