← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/34068/2019allowed

Ranjith @ Raj Kumar v. State Rep By

2020-02-06Honourable Mr Justice N. Seshasayee2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.02.2020 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE Crl.O.P.No.34068 of 2019 Ranjith @ Raj Kumar .... Petitioner /Accused Vs State Rep by The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch Chennai.

.... Respondent / Complainant Prayer :- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 to set aside the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.MP.No.27092 of 2019, dated 11.12.2019 and consequently, extend the time for further period of one week to comply with the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.23011 of 2019, dated 02.11.2019.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudharsan For Respondent : Ms.S.Thankira, Government Advocate [Crl Side]

ORDER

This petition is filed (a) to seek extension of time to comply with the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, in Crl.M.P.No.23011 of 2019, dated 02.11.2019 and (b) to set aside the order of the learned Judge in Crl.MP.No.27092 of 2019, dated 11.12.2019, rejecting the petitioner's prayer to extend the time.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as an accused in Crime No.277 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police, and he was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.23011 of 2019, on 02.11.2019. One of the condition imposed by the Sessions Court while granting anticipatory bail was that the petitioner has to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or the learned Magistrate concerned, within a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

period of fifteen days. Thereafter, in Crl.MP.25604 of 2019, the petitioner had sought extension of time. and this was granted Vide order dated 27.11.2019. Even then, the petitioner could not comply with the condition, and he again sought another extension in Crl.MP.No.27092 of 2019. But, this time the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the petition. Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred this criminal original petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was some communication gap between him and his junior counsel to explain the nature of the order to the petitioner, and also the petitioner's inability to understand the same.

4. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent.

5. Given the nature of circumstances and the conditions imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Court in Crl.MP.No.23011/2019, this Court grants one last opportunity to the petitioner to execute the surety bond in terms of the order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. This petition is accordingly allowed, and the petitioner is granted time till 14.02.2020, to execute the conditions imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.23011/2019.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ds To:

1. The Principal Sessions Judge Chennai.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.N.Sudharsan , Advocate SR.No. 9640 Crl.OP.No.34068 of 2019 A.SK(07/02/2020) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/