 Day: 6 Date: 20.12.

2016

the public prosecutor told that he would give me different kind of cases everyday from the bail

petition he deals with so that I could learn new sections.

Case name: dinesh, ravikumar, ayisha v. inspector of police ( CMP.NO: 4381 / 2016)

The petitioner states that a false complaint have been registered against him on 1.12.2016 under

section 341(wrongful restrain), 392(punishment for robbery), r/w 397( robbery or dacoit with

attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), 506 (ii) of IPC by the respondent i.e the police. One

kavitha from ammapet gave complaint to the police that when she was going to a shop the accused

came in a apache bike and parked it in front of her, they threatened her to give her gold chain at

knife point. The petitioner/ accused plead for bail and they state that they are the permanent

resident of that place and that they would not tamper the witness. But the prosecutor argued that

he would tamper the witness and also that he would threaten the complainant.

The next is regarding a anticipatory bail petition

Case name: kumar and selladurai v. sub inspector of police (C.M.P NO: 4332/2016)

The police registered a fir against the accused under the section 379 and 21(1) of mines and

minerals ( development and regulations) act, 1957.

The fact is that on 25.11.2016 about 5 in the morning the S.I.of police was on rounds. They

conducted a inspection at dhanda four roads near the petrol bunk. During the inspection the police

found out that the accused was illegally transporting sand from mettur worth 3000 rs. The accused

also absconded the vehicle. So the police registered a FIR under the above the sections. So they

applied for anticipatory bail petition.

 Day : 7 Date : 21.12.2016

 Today we dealt with a different kind of bail petition in which the accused failed to comply with

conditions and then he re applied for extension of time for fulfilling the conditions of the bail.

Case name: chinnakannu v. sub inspector of police ( C.M.P.No: 4396/ 2016)

In this the case was registered against one rajkunar, p. saravanan, tamilarasan on 23.9.2014 on the

report the given by one mani and a FIR was registered under 379 of IPC. It is said that while they

were trying to steal the bell the petitioner helped them cover the bell with a bead sheet so that no

one would see them steal, he helped them to commit the crime.

Later he got anticipatory bail on 28.01.206 he was told to produce sureties within 15 days from

granting the bail. The petitioner states that he was afraid of the police and went to theni there got

sick with jaundice so he wasn’t able to move from that place. As undergoing treatment the doctor

told him to not to travel. He delayed to fulfill the condition of producing the sureties by 305 days.

So this above petition is to state the reason for the delay of the petitioner to fulfill the condition.

chinnakannu v. sub inspector of police ( C.M.P.No: 4397/ 2016)

This petition is to file again for the extension of time to produce the sureties, as there was a delay

he has to file petition.

 Day: 8 Date: 22.12.2016

Case name: mariappan v. inspector of police (cr.no.179/2016)

Here the petitioner has submitted a bail petition. On 12.07.2016 at about 6.00 one arukkani gave
a complaint to the police that on 11.07.2016 the complainant’s daughter committed suicide by
hanging herself. After the investigation it was found that the petitioner has harassed her. So a
case was registered under the section 174(3) Cr.P.C