Day

 Day: 3 Date: 16.12.
2016
Case name: palanisamy v. inspector of police ( crime no: 146/2016)
The petitioner aged 50 years is a cooly worker. The police has registered a case under the sec 6(4)
TNSC (RDCS) order 1982 r/w 7(1)a(ii) of essential commodity act 1955 on 11.12.2016 for
carrying 100 kg of ration rice. It is that the petitioner abandoned the vehicle and ran away. He
pleads that he is innocent. So he asks for anticipatory bail.
Case name: vellayan v. inspector of police ( cr.no.563/2016)
The prosecution alleges that the victim woman chinnathayee was found lying unconscious and had
injuries on her jaw and on her private parts on 25.10.2016 by her neighbor muthu pillai. So the
victim gave a complaint. Later on 13.11.2016 the petitioner gave information to the inspector that
the neighbor was the one who injured her due to previous enemity. She also told that he attacked
her with a billhook. The case registered under the section 354(b), 324 and 307 of I.P.C. So the
police arrested the neighbor. Now the accused seeks for bail stating that the police has no authority
to record the confession as the date have passed for a long time.
 Day: 4 Date: 17.12.2016
As there was no court today I went to the prosecutors office. There this criminal case where we
had the discussion with deputy superintendent of police regarding filling a petition for the
cancellation of bail.
Case name: State represented by the inspector of police v.jagan, kannan, dhandapani,
saravanan (Crl.M.P.No.5747)
So in the case of the accused files petition seeking for bail arguing that he was arrested and
remanded to judicial custody on 30.08.16 by the judicial magistrate for the offence302 IPC @
120(b), 147, 148, 302 IPC and that the police have not yet filed the charge sheet within 90 days.
So the bail petition u/s 167 crpc was accepted by the accepted by the court based on the supreme
court case in 1989 SCC(cri) 612 with certain conditions.
The petitioner / accused used the judgment given by the supreme court in the case of aslam
babalal desai v. state of maharatra 1993 AIR (SC) 1 as a precedent case. The appellants were
arrested under sections 147, 148, 302 and 323 but as no charge sheet was filed within 90 days of
the arrest the appellants filed petition for bail. Bail was granted under 167 (2) as the charge sheet
was not filed within 90 days. Then the high court cancelled the bail petition but the Supreme Court
later reversed the high court judgment. The SC said that only because filing a charge sheet after
the bail granted cant be an excuse to cancel the bail there must be serious evidences against the
accused. Also sec 167(2) of Cr.p.c 1973 should be construed strictly in favour of individual
liberty.
In the present case the inspector stated that the purpose of granting the bail was just delay in filing
the charge sheet as 6 more persons were yet to be arrested and for no other cause the bail was
granted so the petitioner wants to cancel the already given bail. The petitioner had clear proof that
the 4 respondents have been habitual offenders and they argued that they misused their bail even
for the offences.
 Day :5 Date: 19.12.16
Case name: senkottaiyan and ors v. inspector of police (c.m.p.no: 3918/2016)

This is a second relaxation bail petition filed by the accused. The petitioner was charged under
147, 447, 427, 323, 506 (i) of ipc. And the petitioner was granted bail by the court. In c.m.p no:
3455/ 2016 with certain conditions at 10:00 a.m. he should sign in the police station. As the
petitioners are laborers and the only breadwinners they requested the judge to grant them
relaxation on the bail petition.
Case name: sankar v. inspector of police ( crl.m.p.n: 4324/ 2016)
Respondent registered a case against the petitioner u/s 4(1)a and 4(1-a) TNP act and the petitioner
was remanded to judicial custody on 2/12/16. Police arrested the petitioner because they were in
possession of 20 liters of I.D arrack. The petitioner states that he is innocent and that he will obey
to any orders/ conditions given by the court. So the petitioners requests for bail.
From what I have learned is that usually they come to a mutual understanding and then they fix a
date. So the accused must be in jail for certain days, then he will be released.

Day

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Day

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Day

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

 Day: 3 Date: 16.12.

Case name: palanisamy v. inspector of police ( crime no: 146/2016)

pleads that he is innocent. So he asks for anticipatory bail.

Case name: vellayan v. inspector of police ( cr.no.563/2016)

 Day: 4 Date: 17.12.2016

court case in 1989 SCC(cri) 612 with certain conditions.

for the offences.

 Day :5 Date: 19.12.16

Case name: senkottaiyan and ors v. inspector of police (c.m.p.no: 3918/2016)

relaxation on the bail petition.

Case name: sankar v. inspector of police ( crl.m.p.n: 4324/ 2016)

You might also like