Ulagu @ Ulaguraja v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Eighteenth day of January Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL MP(MD) No.332 of 2018 IN CRL OP(MD) No.15108 of 2017 ULAGU @ ULAGURAJA ... PETITIONER/PETITIONER Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOVILPATTI EAST POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT (CRIME NO. 484 OF 2017) ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to modify the condition imposed by this Honourable Court passed in Crl.O.P.No. 15108 of 2017 dated 05.12.

2017 as appear before the any other District Police Station instead of appear before the respondent police daily twice until further orders Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.M.PRABHU, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:- This petition has been filed by the petitioner, to modify the condition imposed by this Court passed in Crl.O.P.No.15108 of 2017 dated 05.12.2017 to appear before any other District Police Station, instead of appearing before the respondent police, daily twice, until further orders.

2. Heard the learned counsel on both side.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 08.01.2017, due to the assault made by the defacto complainant's son, the petitioner herein was not in a position to comply the conditions as imposed by this court. But in order to show his bonafide, the petitioner did not produce any documents. If really, the alleged occurrence as stated by the petitioner had taken place, he ought to have made a complaint before the police. But the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not produce any documents for lodging of the complaint before the respondent police in this regard. Further, after getting bail, the petitioner complied https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the condition for one day only. Apart from that if really, the son of the defacto complainant assaulted the petitioner, the petitioner could have filed this application immediately, after the said occurrence had taken place. But, the petitioner failed to do so. Hence, this Court is not inclined to modify this petition. Accordingly, this modification petition is dismissed. sd/- 18/01/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, KOVILPATTI. 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOVILPATTI EAST POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

5 THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, SUB JAIL, PERURANI, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

ORDER

IN CRL MP(MD) No.332 of 2018 IN CRL OP(MD) No.15108 of 2017 Date :18/01/2018 MKV-PM-PN-SAR 4/30.1.2018/2P-6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/