Allowed

Sathish v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Feb 2019CRL OP(MD)/2622/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court examined a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court noted a discrepancy in the seized drug weight between the FIR and recovery memo, finding no adequate explanation. Consequently, the court granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, one being blood related, subject to reporting and non-tampering conditions.

Sathish Vs the Inspector of Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Wednesday, the Twentieth day of February Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.2622 of 2019

¶7

SATHISH

¶8

... PETITIONER / ACCUSED

¶9

¶10

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUDUKKOTTAI TOWN POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.49/2019 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.P.GANAPATHI SUBRAMANIAN, Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.S.CHANDRASEKAR, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner who was arrested on 15.02.2019, for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Cr.No.49 of 2019, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶15

2.It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was implicated in this case for the above said offence and he is in possession of 1 kg 250 gram of kanja. On 12.02.2019, the petitioner was intercepted and found that 1 kg and 250 gram of kanja and thereby, the Law Enforcing Agency registered a case against the petitioner.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that in fact, he is witness in the earlier case registered by the very same police in Cr.No.658 of 2017 wherein he turned hostile and in order to rig vengeance, the respondent police foisted a false case against the petitioner.

¶17

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the the petitioner was in possession of 1 kg 250 gram of kanja and that there is no previous case as against the petitioner. He would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further submit that investigation is pending.

¶18

¶19

5.This Court perused the First Information Report and the recovery mahazer. It would reveal that on 12.02.2019 at 15.30 p.m., the respondent police recovered 1kg 200 gram kanja from that, 25 gram kanja were taken as samples. Hence, the total weight is 1 kg 175 gram. However, FIR shows 1 kg 250 gram was seized from the petitioner. There is no proper explanation for the difference between the recovery mahazer and the First Information Report. Hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶20

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties, of whom, one should be a blood related surety, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Court for NDPS cases, Pudukkottai and on further condition that:

¶21

(a)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;

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(e)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;

¶26

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

sd/-

20/02/2019

/ TRUE COPY /

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

¶31

¶32

1 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL COURT FOR NDPS CASES, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PUDUKKOTTAI.

¶33

¶34

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUDUKKOTTAI TOWN POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

¶35

THE SUPERINTENDENT,CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY.

¶36

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

¶37

+1. CC to Mr.P.GANAPATHI SUBRAMANIAN Advocate SR.No.3401

¶38

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.2622 of 2019 Date :20/02/2019 MS/PN/SAR-2/20.02.2019/3P.6C

¶39

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

Sathish v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathish 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

Sundar@Sundaram Vs the Inspector of Police

L.Kumari Vs J.Lakshmi

M.Murugesan Vs S.Ganesan

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

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

Kolandayammal Vs K.Mani