You may also like...
Vasanthakumar Advt: 18 th YEAR OF MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
by Sekar Reporter · Published July 24, 2022
Sekarreporter1: [4/16, 11:30] Judge Suthantheram: Mr.Justice Anand Venkatesh quashed an FIR invoking exception under section 95 IPC as the offence being trivial in nature. While practicing as advocate for a case before a Magistrate I searched for precedents. Only a very few cases were available.
by Sekar Reporter · Published April 17, 2021
Sidda Dr custody not quashed The case against Thiru Thanickachalam was registered u/s 188, 153a, 505 etc. It was argued by the learned senior counsel that all the sections are bailable except 505 IPC and section 505 does not attract at all, section 41-A circular issued by the DGP and the judgment of the madras high court was violated and similar cases under section 505 registered by various police stations in the state of tamilnadu for posting videos in the web site were granted instant bail, but in this case the state is taking special interest and taking him to police custody and harrasing the petitioner. The state public prosecutor argued that it is very serious in nature the video post by the accused will provoke the general public and asked for dismissal, the honble court upon hearing both side arguments was pleased to set-aside the order passed by the learned cmm and ordered for 4 days custody and to consider the bail petition on the same day after custody.
by Sekar Reporter · Published May 14, 2020