High CourtsSingle Bench

B.Babu @ Bhakrudeen vs The State

Madras High Court · Decided on 4 January 2018 · Citation: (2018) 01 MAD CK 0243

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.Pongiappan
CASE NUMBER
10 of 2018

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 367 words
1.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to modify the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, in Cr.M.P.No.366

of 2010, dated 25.01.2010, insofar as surrendering the Passport of the petitioner, bearing No.G5789631, which is in the custody of the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, in Crime No.56 of 2009 on the file of the respondent police.

2.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed a petition seeking grant of bail before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II,

Dindigul, in Cr.M.P.No.366 of 2010. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, vide order dated 25.01.2010, granted bail to the petitioner

by imposing a condition that he should surrender his passport with the Court. Accordingly, the petitioner/accused was released and his passport

has been surrendered and the same is now, under custody of the Court. He further submitted that the passport was expired on 25.10.2017 and the

same has to be renewed.

3.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation revealed that the documents and the addresses given by the accused

are forged and the present petitioner involved in other crimes along with other accused and certain informations have to be gathered from the

petitioner and therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, vide order dated 25.01.2010, granted bail to the petitioner by imposing a

condition that he should surrender his passport with the Court. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the Criminal Original Petition.

4.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

5.

The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, perused. Before passing the impugned order, the learned Judicial

Magistrate came to the conclusion that there may be the chance to the petitioner from leaving India, due to that reason and also considering the

offence committed by the petitioner, which involves the welfare of the Country, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed to surrender the passport

of the petitioner. So, the condition imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, to surrender the passport of the petitioner while

granting bail to him holds good and the same does not require any modification. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.