Ayyar @ K.Ramakrishnan, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Seventh day of February Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED CRL MP(MD) No.775 of 2017 IN CRL OP(MD) No.23594 of 2016 AYYAR @ K.RAMAKRISHNAN, ... PETITIONER / PETITIONER Vs THE STATE REP BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAPPANADU POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

(CR.NO.185/2016) ... RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to modify the condition imposed in Crl.OP(MD)No.23594 of 2016 by order dated 21.12.2016.

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.V.NAGENTHRAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.P.KANDASAMY Government Advocate (Crl.side) on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following order:- I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent.

2.On perusal of the records would show that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 21.12.2016, directing the petitioner to appear before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks. It is admitted that, as per the order of this Court, the petitioner surrendered before concerned Court on 05.01.2017 and had executed the sureties, as ordered by this Court. It is further stated that, when the petitioner went to the station for complying with the condition, the respondent police restrained the petitioner to sign before the Police and threatened that if the petitioner entered into the Police Station, immediately, he would register a false case and remand him. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent states that the alleged reasons is not true and it is stated only for the purpose of modification.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The reason is not acceptable one, as per the averments made in this case. Hence, this petition stands dismissed. The petitioner is directed to comply with the condition, as ordered by this Court. sd/- 07/02/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ORATHANADU, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAPPANADU POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL MP(MD) No.775 of 2017 IN CRL OP(MD) No.23594 of 2016 Date :07/02/2017 MKV-SV-MMS-SAR 2/13.2.2017/2P-5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/