C.Amudha v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.01.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.14635 of 2020 C.Amudha, F/47, Daughter of Chocklingam ... Petitioner -Vs.-

1. The Inspector of Police, W-7, All Women Police Station, Anna Nagar, Chennai District.

2. C.Mathu, M/49, Son of late S.P.Chockalingam ,... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in Crl.O.P.No.5013 of 2020 dated 09.03.2020.

For Petitioner : No appearance For R1 : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor For R2 : Mr.R.Raj 1/5

O R D E R

(The case has been heard through video conference) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.5013 of 2020 dated 09.03.2020.

2. On 05.01.2021, there was no representation for the petitioner and thereby, this matter was posted today i.e.,07.01.2021 under the caption ''for dismissal''. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner. It is a petition filed seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail. The only ground raised seeking for cancellation of bail is that the second respondent had not complied with the condition imposed by this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that only ground raised by the petitioner seeking for cancellation is that the second respondent had not complied with the condition imposed by this Court, while granting anticipatory bail to him in Crl.O.P.No.5013 of 2020 dated 09.03.2020. He would submit that after execution of sureties, the second respondent/accused had been regularly complying with the original 2/5

condition imposed by this Court and he has appeared before the respondent every day at 10.30 a.m., and thereafter, the condition was modified to that effect the second respondent/accused, shall appear before the respondent on the 1st and 3rd Monday of every month at 10.30 a.m., The second respondent/accused had been regularly complying with the condition without any deviation.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the second respondent had been regularly complying with the condition and the modified condition imposed by this Court.

5. No representation for the petitioner despite the matter being posted under the Caption ''for dismissal''

6. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

7. The grounds raised for counsel is that the second respondent has not complied with the condition whereas it is submission of the learned 3/5

Additional Public Prosecutor that the second respondent has complied with the condition regularly.

8. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the second respondent, this Criminal Original Petition for cancellation of bail stands dismissed.

07.01.2021 msrm To

1. The Inspector of Police, W-7, All Women Police Station, Anna Nagar, Chennai District.

2 The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

4/5

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

msrm Crl.O.P.No.14635 of 2020 07.01.2021 5/5