Allowed

S. Srinivasa Perumal v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 May 2018CRL OP(MD)/7558/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court heard a petition for anticipatory bail. The court observed that offences under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, are bailable, whereas the IPC charge attracted was inappropriate. Accordingly, the court granted bail with strict conditions requiring daily appearance and future interrogation attendance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon executing a bond for Rs.10,000 with two sureties for similar amounts and agreeing to appear daily at 10.30 a.m. for two weeks.

S. Srinivasa Perumal Vs the Inspector of Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Wednesday, the Sixteenth day of May Two Thousand Eighteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.S.RAMESH

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.7558 of 2018

¶7

S.SRINIVASA PERUMAL ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

STATE REP.BY

¶10

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIDEERNAGAR POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY,

¶11

MADURAI, (CRIME NO.271/2018) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶12

For Petitioner : M/S.R.PRABHAKARAN Advocate

¶13

For Respondent : M/S.A.P.G.OHM CHAIRMA PRABHU Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶14

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 328 IPC and Sections 14, 7(1) and 20(2) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, in Crime No.271 of 2018, and seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶18

3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the petitioner and the other co-accused stored 41 bundles of Tobacco without proper warning symbols and 12 bundles of Macblue Cigarette and 15 bundles of Gold King Cigarette and 3 bundles of Kabali Pan Masala in the godown and the same has been recovered.

¶19

4.The averments made in the complaint may not attract Section 328 IPC, whereas, the other offences committed under the provisions https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production,

¶20

¶21

Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, mentioned above, are bailable in nature. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

5.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail

¶23

in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Magistrate concerned within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on executing a 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 Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, or to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶24

sd/16/05/2018

¶25

/ TRUE COPY /

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶27

¶28

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.V, MADURAI.

¶29

2 -D0- THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶30

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶31

THIDEERNAGAR POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY, MADURAI.

¶32

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

¶33

+1. CC to M/S.R.PRABHAKARAN Advocate SR.No.8561

¶34

ORDER

¶35

IN CRL OP(MD) No.7558 of 2018 (1/3)

¶36

Date :16/05/2018

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JM/SV MMS/GSR/21.05.2018/2P/6C

S. Srinivasa Perumal v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Srinivasa Perumal 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

Mayakrishnan Vs the Regional Manager

M. Muniyandi, Vs the District Collector

Rose Mary Educational Society Vs the Director of Collegiate

Alagarsami Vs the Superintendent of Police

C.Rajangam Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Sureshbabu Vs the Commissioner of Police