You are on page 1of 17




Student name: V.S.Viesakan Reg no: BCO150031

Date: 5-1-2017

Year of study: II year

Internship type: district court

Tel: 9487526161 e-mail:

Contact person in organization

Tel: 9443251299 e-mail:

Period of internship: 15 days

Internship approved/ NOT approved

Internal supervisor’s signature:

External supervisor certificate submitted

Internship diary submitted


 Internship certificate

 Declaration form

 Day 1: Date: 14.12.2016

Today was the first day of the internship with the public prosecutor Mr.dhanasekaran.

He gave a brief introduction of how the filling of a petition works. The P.A of the public

prosecutor introduced to the work carried by the PP. it is clear that public prosecutor is

the person who handles all the cases for the government in that district. As of now the

district judge seat is vacant so only the bail petition are being heard by the session

judge. I then accompanied the public prosecutor to the 1st additional court session judge

regarding the bail petition of a criminal case, which he told me to observe of the

proceedings for the bail petition (Case name:satheesh(A1) and john(A2) versus sub

inspector of police ) . The above case was about both the accused snatched money from

the complainant forcefully. So the police has filed under section 392, 397 and 506(ii).

The bail application was dimissed.

Personal police of the PP explained about the different types of bail petition which can

be filed

1. Relaxation bail- to relax the condition (sankar ganesh, thangavel, kumar,

sundaram, viaya v. sub inspector of police C.M.P no: 4291/2016)

2. Anticipatory bail- k. rajendran v. sub inspector of crime branch Crl.M.P.No

4151 of 2016)

Then I read different bail petition order, which was accepted and cancelled by the judge.

 Day 2: Date: 15.12.16

Case name: Lakshmi and anbarasi v. sub inspector of police (


Fact: Lakshmi (1st petitioner) and widowed daughter (2nd petitioner). Police have

arrested them based on the complainant given by one navamani on 13.10.16. the

petitioners son was married to the complainants daughter. On 13.10.16 at 8:00 clock

the complainant received a call from his son in law stating that his daughter committed

suicide. The police has registered a case under sec 174 Cr.p.c for suspicious death.

After the RDO inquiry it was altered to 304(B) IPC. Later manikandan(husband) was

arrested. The petitioners claim that the grandkids of petitioner 1 and children of

petitioner 2 are suffering due to the arrest. As the police are searching for their arrest

the petitioners want anticipatory bail.

Case name: sindhuja v. k.r.prakash and s.i of police

This is a intervene petition. She is the de facto complainant in the below bail petition.

The police registered a case against the accused (A1) husband under section 498(A),

506(i) on 25.1.16. Accused filed a bail petition for pre arrest bail. The fact is that the

marriage between petitioner and the accused took place on 22.6.14. The petitioner’s

father gave 31 sovereigns gold, 50,000 worth furniture and 5,00,000 in cash. Four

months after the marriage the mother (A2) and sister (A3) of A1 influenced him to

demand 10,00,000 from his wife. So they treated her cruelly and also he went abroad

leaving her in his house. The accused has also filed a complaint C.S.R. No. 360/2016

stating that the petitioner is having illegal affair. So this is the objection to grant pre-

arrest bail.

Later in the bail application by the accused (crime no.11/2016) (A.W.P.S. ammapet)

The accused argued that the allegations made against him was false and telling that his

wife is having illegal affair and that he has already filed a case C.S.R. No. 360/2016.

Also that he would be tortured by the police, so he requests for bail.

Case name: maikandan v. s.i of police ( of eddpadi P.S)

The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.11.2016 for the

allege offence under 306 of IPC based on the complaint given by the father in law on

20.11.16. the complaint was that the petitioners wife hanged herself after her husbands

business faced a heavy loss and the petitioner told her to get money from her father.

She committed suicide when she went to her parents house. The accused claims that he

is innocent and she hanged herself only after a fight with her father. So the petitioner

wants bail. The bail petition was dismissed.

 Day: 3 Date: 16.12.2016

Case name: palanisamy v. inspector of police ( crime no: 146/2016)

The petitioner aged 50 years is a cooly worker. The police has registered a case under

the sec 6(4) TNSC (RDCS) order 1982 r/w 7(1)a(ii) of essential commodity act 1955

on 11.12.2016 for carrying 100 kg of ration rice. It is that the petitioner abandoned the

vehicle and ran away. He pleads that he is innocent. So he asks for anticipatory bail.

Case name: vellayan v. inspector of police (

The prosecution alleges that the victim woman chinnathayee was found lying

unconscious and had injuries on her jaw and on her private parts on 25.10.2016 by her

neighbor muthu pillai. So the victim gave a complaint. Later on 13.11.2016 the

petitioner gave information to the inspector that the neighbor was the one who injured

her due to previous enemity. She also told that he attacked her with a billhook. The

case registered under the section 354(b), 324 and 307 of I.P.C. So the police arrested

the neighbor. Now the accused seeks for bail stating that the police has no authority to

record the confession as the date have passed for a long time.

 Day: 4 Date: 17.12.2016

As there was no court today I went to the prosecutors office. There this criminal case

where we had the discussion with deputy superintendent of police regarding filling a

petition for the cancellation of bail.

Case name: State represented by the inspector of police v.jagan, kannan,

dhandapani, saravanan (Crl.M.P.No.5747)

So in the case of the accused files petition seeking for bail arguing that he was arrested

and remanded to judicial custody on 30.08.16 by the judicial magistrate for the

offence302 IPC @ 120(b), 147, 148, 302 IPC and that the police have not yet filed the

charge sheet within 90 days. So the bail petition u/s 167 crpc was accepted by the

accepted by the court based on the supreme court case in 1989 SCC(cri) 612 with

certain conditions.

The petitioner / accused used the judgment given by the supreme court in the case of

aslam babalal desai v. state of maharatra 1993 AIR (SC) 1 as a precedent case. The

appellants were arrested under sections 147, 148, 302 and 323 but as no charge sheet

was filed within 90 days of the arrest the appellants filed petition for bail. Bail was

granted under 167 (2) as the charge sheet was not filed within 90 days. Then the high

court cancelled the bail petition but the Supreme Court later reversed the high court

judgment. The SC said that only because filing a charge sheet after the bail granted cant

be an excuse to cancel the bail there must be serious evidences against the accused.

Also sec 167(2) of Cr.p.c 1973 should be construed strictly in favour of individual


In the present case the inspector stated that the purpose of granting the bail was just

delay in filing the charge sheet as 6 more persons were yet to be arrested and for no

other cause the bail was granted so the petitioner wants to cancel the already given bail.

The petitioner had clear proof that the 4 respondents have been habitual offenders and

they argued that they misused their bail even for the offences.

 Day :5 Date: 19.12.16

Case name: senkottaiyan and ors v. inspector of police ( 3918/2016)

This is a second relaxation bail petition filed by the accused. The petitioner was

charged under 147, 447, 427, 323, 506 (i) of ipc. And the petitioner was granted bail by

the court. In c.m.p no: 3455/ 2016 with certain conditions at 10:00 a.m. he should sign

in the police station. As the petitioners are laborers and the only breadwinners they

requested the judge to grant them relaxation on the bail petition.

Case name: sankar v. inspector of police ( crl.m.p.n: 4324/ 2016)

Respondent registered a case against the petitioner u/s 4(1)a and 4(1-a) TNP act and the

petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 2/12/16. Police arrested the petitioner

because they were in possession of 20 liters of I.D arrack. The petitioner states that he

is innocent and that he will obey to any orders/ conditions given by the court. So the

petitioners requests for bail.

From what I have learned is that usually they come to a mutual understanding and then

they fix a date. So the accused must be in jail for certain days, then he will be released.

 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 /


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:


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 (

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

(suspicious death) and 498(A), 306 IPC. The petitioner states that he is innocent and

that he did not commit the offence. He is also under judicial custody from 09.12.2016.

Case name: Rep. by all women police v. ranjith

The accused no:3 was married to the complainant. The accused here requests for

anticipatory bail. The accused states that he and wife started and quarreling and also

that her mother would also threaten him that they complaint against dowry case. On 19.

8. 2016 they had a quarrel from some problem and her mother got admitted in the

hospital and told that the accused beat her. The police used to call him for frequent

interrogation even during night time. He has requested for AB stating that there is no

complaint or FIR filed against him. on 19-09-2016 his wife lodged a complaint stating

the his father used fire log to injure her so he was arrested. The police have registered

under the section 498A, 324 & 506(ii) IPC.

 Day: 9 Date: 23.12.2016

Case name: thirumurugan V. inspector of police (C.M.P.No: 4400/2016)

A FIR was registered under the section 323, 392, 506(ii) of IPC on 16.12.2016. The

complainant thathapan had one and half acre of agricultural land. Athanurpatti pandyan

bought 10 acres of the adjoining land. As there was no way for those 10 acres he asked

for the complainants half an acre. The complainant refused to give so the accused

threatened him also on 16.12.16 the accused and his people build a hut in his land and

snatched the Rs. 10,000 which he had for buying pipes. So now the petitioner seeks for

bail and also states that it is a false accusation.

Case name: habbar v. inspector of police( 4322/2016)

In this I was given only the modification bail petition and other case weren’t given to

me so only conditions put forth by the petitioner were known to me. The petitioners

obtained bail on 15.12.2016. in the their modified bail petition they want ration card

and voter I.D as their sureties. But the judicial magistriate-2 insisted to submit solvency

certificates. They plead that the lengthy proceedings and inability to obtain sureties and

expensive in nature. So they ask for modification.

 Day: 10 Date: 24.12.2016

As there is no court we had discussion regarding a revision petition filed by the public

prosecutor. in the below mentioned case the judge has passed an order for an interim

petition filed by the accused , so the prosecutor has filed a revision petition stating that

the order passed by the judge is wrong and to reverse the judgment.

After filing the revision petition the court has sent notice to the respondent/ petitioner

stating that they must be present before the court on 6/01/2017 and if they fail to do so

then the judgment would be given in favour of the revision petitioner.

Case name: forest range officer v. k.balasubramanian

Fact: on 17.5.2015 at 3 P.M the respondent’s son karthikeyan was carrying 11.200 kg

sandalwood in the respondent’s car bearing TN 37 BF 9615 illegally from the

reserved forest and the revision petitioner caught hold of the vehicle in the yercaud

check post and confiscated the vehicle under section 49 (b) of the Tamil Nadu forest

act. The criminal proceeding is pending. The respondent filed for a interim petition to

get the custody of the vehicle and the learned judicial magistrate No.VI Salem passed

in favour of the respondent. So the revision petition was filed to get the custody of the


The points to argue for the revision petitioner are as follows:

 It is contrary to the well-established law and facts besides illegal.

 The learned judicial magistrate failed to understand to the tenor section 451 of

Cr.p.c and concluded as if the vehicle could be ordered to be released on

terms. But as it transported illegally it should not be released in the interest of


 The vehicle in the accused name but based on the fact the father of the accused

is the owner of the vehicle.

 Also that this order is contrary to the judgment reported in AIR 2002 SC 221,

AIR 2000 SC 2729, wherein it is uniformly decided that the vehicle used for

illegal transportation from the reserved forest shall not be ordered to be


 The lower court also failed to see that the if the interim custody is granted then

the he would sell or alter the vehicle and the police would not be able to prove

the prosecution case.

 Day: 11 Date : 26.12.2016

Today was the discussion regarding the cancellation of bail petition

A short brief about this case is that the petitioner/accused were in possession of a land

in ayothiapattanam when the informant filed a suit for injunction and said that the

property was his. The 2nd additional munsif favored the informant then it is overturned

by the 2nd additional subordinate judge then again it was over turned in favor of the

informant by the high court. In order to get the possession of the property the informant

he bought materials build fences and the petitioner with the help of others stooped the

informant with the help of police. The informant filed a FIR stating they damaged the

crops under the section 379 of IPC.

Case name: babu kumar and inspector of police v. madheswaran

the petitioner is the complainant and he lodged a complaint on 13.07.2015 against the

accused who stole his property worth Rs.1,30,250 from his agricultural land. And a FIR

was registered under the section 379 of IPC. The accused filed for AB on 1.8.2015 and

they got it (C.M.P.No: 2411/2015) now the petitioner files a petition for cancellation of

bail after 1 year by using the following arguments.

 The respondents did not comply with the conditions imposed by the honorable

court and also the 1st accused tries to tamper the witness and continuously

giving life threat to the de facto complainant.

 The respondents threatened him.

 The respondents would disturb public peace.

 Day: 12 date: 2.1.2017

Today was the first day of the court for the year 2017.though there were a lot of cases

bending the district court judge was not yet appointed. The additional session judge

heard only the bail petitions.

Case name: srinivasan and chikkan v. S.I. of police

This is a interesting case as the case really twisted with facts. The accused were

remanded to judicial custody on 15.12.2016 for the crime 174 of cr.p.c @ to 302 and

201 of IPC for the incident on 25.4.2015. According to the F.I.R the complainant was

married to the deceased ayyanar. On 25.4.2015 she got the news that her husband met

with an accident and passed away so filed a complaint on the same day. On 5.5.2015

the police found out that it was a suspicious death. On 4.11.2016 the new police officer

found out that one thangamany (a3) had illicit relationship with the complainant and

that he has murdered the deceased. So the petitioners A1 and A2 are requesting for bail

as they are arrested on a false complainant.

Case name: archunan v. inspector of police (

The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody for the offence u/s 4(1) (a) 4(1-A)

TNP act on 14-12-16. He was arrested for the possession of 180 ml of 5 pattil singam

brandy. The petitioner seeks for bail stating he would accept to any condition imposed

by the court.

 Day: 13 date: 3.1.2017

Case name: n.shamugavel and ors v. deputy superintendent of police


The petitioner is the 4th accused and he is also filing the anticipatory bail on behalf of

the other 3 petitioners who are his brothers. One mahindran lodged a complaint against

the petitioners that they have stolen their mother’s share of property. The respondents

enquired about the matter on 13.12.2016. the facts states that the partition among the

family took place on 5.10.1987. as per the partition the petitioners and their mother

sold the property on 1987, 1993 and 2007. The purchasers also made it a housing site

and sold it to different other persons and buildings were constructed. The property is

being enjoyed for several years. The petitioners claim that the complainant have no

share in the property a the partition took place on 5.10.1987. now they request for bail.

Case name: ranjith raja v. inspector of police

This petition was filed for the change of name. the petitioner was charged under the

section 294(b) 323 and 506(ii) IPC and 4(1)j of TNO act. The court also granted him

bail on 21.12.2016 in C.M.P.4331/2016. So this petition is that the his father’s name is

actually KARUNANEETHI but it is typed as karunamoorthy, so he wants to change it.

 Day: 14 Date: 4.1.2017

Case name: mohan kumar v. inspector of police

The police filed a case against the petitioner under section 342, 376, 506(ii) of IPC in on 26.11.2016. The defacto complainant is one indhu rekha aged 26

years is a divorced woman who is deaf and dumb. Now she is living with her sister and

brother. On 22.11.2016 at 4 p.m it is alleged that the petitioner pushed her into his

house and raped. He threatened to kill her if she told anyone. On 26.11.2016 she

reported the matter to the police station. He was taken into custody in the very same

day. The petitioner claims that they are related and also that he is younger to her by 4

years and the street is crowded place so he could have not done the act. He seeks for

bail. His first bail application was rejected.

Case name: sasikumar v. sub inspector of police

The police have registered a case under the section 294(b), 353 and 307 of IPC in crime

no: 629/2016 dated 21.12.2016. The defacto complainant is working in the jallikadu

wine shop with his assistant one arul. The petitioner asked M.C.brandi to arul and arul

told that they stopped it, so the petitioner harassed him. Again the petitioner asked to

the complainant when he told that it was not there, the petitioner abused him and also

threatened him with a knife. The petitioner pleads that he is innocent and asks for bail.

 Day: 15 Date: 5.1.2017

Case name: somasundaram and ors v. inspector of police (crl.M.P.No:91 0f 2017)

One balaji gave a complaint against the petitioner on 25.11.2016. The petitioner alleges

that his wife and the complainant were in love with each other as their did not accept

she was married to the accused, still the wife and the complainant were in contact

through mobile. On 29.10.2016 she called him to her house, so the complainant

climbed through the wall to meet her. At that time when the accused came and shouted

the complainant fell. But the complainant states that he pushed him out of the wall. So

fir was filed under sec 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC.

Case name: venkatesh v. S.I.of police

The petitioner was arrested under the section 419,420 of IPCr/w sec.15(2) of I.M.A act

for the offence which occurred on 21.12.2016 on the complaint given by one

valarmathy, medical officer. The complaint was that the accused ws running the

medical shop without proper license and also giving treatments to the people. The

petitioner state that the allegations are false and requests for bail.