Allowed

Sundar@Sundaram v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Feb 2019CRL OP(MD)/20917/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of illegal possession of illicit spirit. Bail was subject to conditions including a deposit for alcoholics' treatment, daily reporting, and appearance before the Magistrate within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail subject to executing a bond, depositing Rs. 25,000 for alcoholics' treatment, appearing before Magistrate within 15 days, and complying with specific reporting and

Sundar@Sundaram Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Monday, the Eighteenth day of February Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.20917 of 2018

¶7

SUNDAR@SUNDARAM ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.6

¶8

Vs THE STATE REP.BY

¶9

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEW KARUR DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.1001/2018) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.ALAGUSUNDAR Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI Govt. Advocate

¶12

( Crl. Side)

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 5 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, Rectified Spirt Rules 2000 r/w Section 120(B) IPC in Cr.No.1001 of 2018, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

2.It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner were in illegal possession of 700 litters of illicit spirt and hence, a case has been registered against the petitioner.

¶17

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they are innocent persons. However, on instructions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner are ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/to the credit of the Dean, K.A.P.Viswanatham Government Medical College, Trichy, for the welfare of the alcohol addicted persons without prejudice to their defence before the trial Court.

¶18

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail. However, he would submit that anticipatory bail may grant by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ imposing stringent conditions.

¶19

¶20

5.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with a condition that the petitioner shall deposit jointly a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the credit of the Dean, K.A.P.Viswanatham Government Medical College, Trichy, for giving treatment to the alcohol addict persons. Accordingly, the petitioner are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶21

(a) petitioner shall deposit jointly a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the credit of the Dean, K.A.P.Viswanatham Government Medical College, Trichy, for giving treatment to the alcohol addicted persons, without prejudice to their defence before the trial Court;

¶22

(b)the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶23

(c)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 p.m., until further orders;

¶24

(d)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶25

(e)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶26

(f)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

¶27

(g)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶28

sd/-

¶29

18/02/2019 / TRUE COPY /

¶30

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶31

¶32

¶33

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO-I, KARUR.

¶34

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARUR.

¶35

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶36

PEW KARUR DISTRICT.

¶37

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

¶38

COPY TO

¶39

THE DEAN, K.A.P.VISWANATHAM GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRICHY.

¶40

+1 CC to M/s.S.ALAGU SUNDAR, Advocate ( SR-3335[I] PS/JC/SAR-4/20.02.2019/3P/7C

¶41

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.20917 of 2018 Date :18/02/2019

¶42

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

Sundar@Sundaram v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundar@Sundaram 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L.Kumari Vs J.Lakshmi

M.Murugesan Vs S.Ganesan

Santhanam Vs the Inspector of Police

Sathish Vs the Inspector of Police

Mr.M.O.Roy Vs Mr.R.Subramanian

R. Kumar, S/O.Ramamoorthy Vs the Inspector of Police