Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 86350 (MAD)

Murali v. The State Rep. By

CRL OP/22784/2025 · 2025-08-18

N Sathish Kumar

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRL OP No. 22784 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-08-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR CRL OP No. 22784 of 2025 1. Murali S/o.Asaithambi, No.76, TMN Kovil Street, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore - 631 151. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Rep. By Inspector of Police, K7 ICF Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.436 of 2019 Respondent(s) PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to set aside order rejecting the surety dated 11.07.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.6029 of 2025 in S.C.No.28 of 2017 on the file of the Honble VI Additional District Sessions Judge, Chennai and permit the petitioner to furnish the sureties on execution of bond without insisting for property worth about Rs.10,000/- by allowing this Petition and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): R.Prabakar P.Marudhupandiyan https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 22784 of 2025 S.Selvi S.Senthil Kumar S.Ranjithkumaran M.Saradadevi For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Vinoth Raja, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER This Petition has been filed to set aside order rejecting the surety dated 11.07.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.6029 of 2025 in S.C.No.28 of 2017 on the file of the Honble VI Additional District Sessions Judge, Chennai and permit the petitioner to furnish the sureties on execution of bond without insisting for property worth about Rs.10,000/- by allowing this Petition. 2. The impugned order has been passed by the Trial Court rejecting the surety on the ground that the petitioner has not produced sufficient documents to prove that he holds the property to the worth of Rs.10,000/-. According to the petitioner, the sureties are none other than his wife and mother. 3. The accused was taken into custody on execution of Non-Bailable Warrant issued by VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. Admittedly, he is in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 22784 of 2025 custody for more than six months. The petitioners mother and wife stood as a surety along with necessary documents. Without considering these aspects, the Trial Court has rejected the Petition filed by the petitioner. In such view of the matter, the order of the Trial Court is rejected and the Trial Court shall accept the residential proof of the mother and wife of the accused and enlarge the accused on bail with usual conditions. 4. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. 18-08-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No gsk https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 22784 of 2025 To 1.The State Rep. By Inspector of Police, K7 ICF Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.436 of 2019 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 22784 of 2025 N.SATHISH KUMAR J. gsk CRL OP No. 22784 of 2025 18-08-2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis