Allowed

Sulian @ Mayandi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Feb 2014CRL OP(MD)/1311/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of offenses under the NDPS Act. The court imposed strict conditions, including personal bond, appearance before police for interrogation, and appearance before the Magistrate within 15 days, failing which the bail petition would be dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail on execution of personal bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties and compliance with specified conditions of appearance.

Sulian @ Mayandi Vs the Inspector of Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Thursday, the Twentieth day of February Two Thousand Fourteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.1311 of 2014

¶6

1 SULIAN @ MAYANDI

¶7

2 MATHANA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.4 & 5

¶8

¶9

THE STATE REP.BY

¶10

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THENKARAI POLICE STAITON, THENI DISTRICT.

¶11

CRIME NO.369/2013. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶12

FOR PETITIONER : M/S.R.GOWRISHANKAR ADVOCATE

¶13

FOR RESPONDENT : MR.K.V.RAJARAJAN, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE[CRL SIDE]

¶14

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SEC. 438 CR.P.C.

¶15

ORDER : THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER :-

¶16

There are totally five accused in this case and the petitioners are arrayed as A4 and A5 and apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, said to have been committed on 09.10.2013, in Crime No.369 of 2013, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

2.The case of the prosecution is that the respondent police conducted a search and found the accused Nos.1 to 5 in possession of three bags containing 20 Kgs. Ganja each and the petitioners escaped from the scene of occurrence.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that A1 to A3 were arrested and enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2013, made in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.23036 of 2013 on the ground that the distribution of contraband is less than commercial quantity and based on the confession of the co-accused the petitioners have been implicated in this case.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) inviting the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit and submitted that the first petitioner is having two previous cases of the same type in Cr.No.44 of 2011 on the file of the Cumbum North Police Station and Crime No.96 of 2013 on the file of the Cumbum South Police station involving contrabands of 3 Kgs and 8 Kgs. respectively and that the investigation is pending.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. This Court heard the rival submissions and also perused the entire materials available on record.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Additional District Judge, Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 11.00 a.m. for a period of ten weeks and thereafter, as and when required for the purpose of interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶22

The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

¶23

sd/-

¶24

20/02/2014

¶25

/ TRUE COPY /

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶27

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶28

Madurai - 625 023.

¶29

¶30

1 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRINCIPAL SPECIAL COURT FOR NDPS ACT CASES, MADURAI.

¶31

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THENKARAI POLICE STAITON, THENI DISTRICT.

¶32

3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶33

+1. CC to M/S.R.GOWRISHANKAR Advocate SR.No.10845

¶34

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.1311 of 2014 Date :20/02/2014 2P/5C RPB 25.02.2014

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Sulian @ Mayandi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulian @ Mayandi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Xavier Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Rajendran Vs the Inspector of Police

Balaji Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police

P.M.Shanmgam Vs the Inspector of Police

P.T.M. Ramasamy Vs the Inspector of Police