Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |    

Madras High Court Modifies Onerous Condition for Vehicle Release in Stone Theft Case: Reduces Deposit Amount to Aid Petitioner’s Livelihood

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that underscores the balance between legal procedures and humanitarian considerations, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court modified an onerous condition imposed for the release of a vehicle involved in a stone theft case. The order, delivered by the Honorable Mr. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, reduced the mandatory deposit amount from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 50,000, recognizing the petitioner’s financial hardship and dependence on the vehicle for livelihood.

The case, titled Parthiban Vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Chinnadharapuram Police Station, Karur District, revolved around the petitioner’s lorry, seized under the accusations of involvement in stone theft (Crime No. 146/2023). Initially, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karur, had ordered the release of the vehicle under certain conditions, including the hefty deposit.

In his observation, Justice Singh noted, “Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account the livelihood of the petitioner,” demonstrating a keen sensitivity to the petitioner’s financial struggles and the critical role of the vehicle in his life. The court’s decision to halve the deposit amount to Rs. 50,000 provides a relief to the petitioner, who argued that the vehicle’s idle state would lead to deterioration and potential engine failure, exacerbating his financial crisis.

This decision is seen as a judicial recognition of the economic realities faced by individuals embroiled in legal proceedings and sets a precedent for balancing legal requirements with compassion. The petitioner, represented by Mr. K. Sivabalan, expressed relief over the court’s modification, which allows him to regain the vehicle, a vital asset for his income.

Dated: 22nd January 2024

Parthiban VS State

 

Similar News