Gowtham advt –High court set-aside cmm order granting 6 days custody and reduced it to 4 days, bail should b considered on merits on the same day after custody. S. PRABAKARAN, Senior advocate appeared for thiru thanikachalam
![Sekarreporter: [3/21, 11:24] Sekarreporter: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1505784864028921858?t=If8pIISrOIVsTP8dgztP4A&s=08 [3/21, 11:24] Sekarreporter: [3/21, 10:55] Sekarreporter: https://twitter.com/lawbarandbench/status/1505773960432021507?s=24 [3/21, 11:23] Sekarreporter: Senior Advocate @PWilsonDMK appears before a Supreme Court Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud & Surya Kant: I request Your Lordships to continue this virtual hearing till regional benches, I can see the diversity!](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story Vijayaragan Mhc Advt: Continuing his colourful form with the gavel, Justice Anand Venkatesh, has scored another scintillating knock, during these Pandemic times. Not resting on his laurels, dispensing with the requirement of ‘decree drafting’ in motor accidents claims, by orders dt.11/5/2020, in existence for 64 long years, he has now stepped into a 17 year old vintage vexed issue.
- Previous story 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.
Recent Posts
- Mhc news
- “We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and direct the First Appellate Authority to treat the delay as condoned, and examine and pass orders on merits. Writ appeal stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs.” https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/mr-k-r-shriram-chief-justice-and-mr-justice-mohammed-shaffiqmr-justice-mohammed-shaffiq/#:~:text=We%20are%2C%20therefore,as%20to%20costs.
- கே.சந்துரு மேனாள் நீதிபதி சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் நீதிபதி டாக்டர் மரியா கிளீட் அளித்துள்ள பரபரப்பான தீர்ப்பு
- MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR A.S.No.586 of 2025 and CMP.No.10580 of 2025 Prema … Appellant
- நீதிபதி திரு சத்யநாராயண பிரசாத் அவர்கள் முன்னிலையில் விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது. மனுதாரர் மற்றும் சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்ற மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர் துரைசாமியின் சார்பில், வழக்கறிஞர் வி. இளங்கோவன் ஆஜரானார். அரசு
More
Recent Posts
- Mhc news
- “We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and direct the First Appellate Authority to treat the delay as condoned, and examine and pass orders on merits. Writ appeal stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs.” https://wwwsekarreporter.wordpress.com/mr-k-r-shriram-chief-justice-and-mr-justice-mohammed-shaffiqmr-justice-mohammed-shaffiq/#:~:text=We%20are%2C%20therefore,as%20to%20costs.
- கே.சந்துரு மேனாள் நீதிபதி சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் நீதிபதி டாக்டர் மரியா கிளீட் அளித்துள்ள பரபரப்பான தீர்ப்பு
- MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR A.S.No.586 of 2025 and CMP.No.10580 of 2025 Prema … Appellant
- நீதிபதி திரு சத்யநாராயண பிரசாத் அவர்கள் முன்னிலையில் விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது. மனுதாரர் மற்றும் சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்ற மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர் துரைசாமியின் சார்பில், வழக்கறிஞர் வி. இளங்கோவன் ஆஜரானார். அரசு
