Allowed

Muthu v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Feb 2019CRL OP(MD)/2921/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an illegal possession of arrack case, imposing stringent conditions including a mandatory deposit for alcohol treatment, regular reporting to police, and execution of a bail bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with conditions: deposit Rs.10,000 for treatment, daily reporting, execution of bond with sureties, and prohibition of flight or tampering.

Muthu Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Tuesday, the Twenty Sixth day of February Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.2921 of 2019

¶7

MUTHU ... PETITIONER /SOLE ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT WING, PATTUKOTTAI, THANJAVUR DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.935/2018) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶10

For Petitioner : MR.D.R.MURUGESAN Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 4 (1) (aaa) and 4 (1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act in Crime No.935 of 2018, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was in illegal possession five cans of 25 litres of arrack and hence, a case has been registered against the petitioner. However, on instructions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/to the credit of the Dean, Medical College, Thanjavur, for the welfare of the alcohol addicted persons without prejudice to their defence before the trial Court.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is innocent person.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶18

¶19

However, anticipatory bail may grant by imposing stringent conditions.

¶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 a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only ) to the credit of the Dean, Medical College, Thanjavur for giving treatment to the alcohol addict persons. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Thanjavur on condition that the petitioner shall execute 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 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 a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the credit of the Dean, Medical College, Thanjavur, for giving treatment to the alcohol addicted persons, without prejudice to his defence before the trial Court;

¶22

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

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

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

¶32

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, THANJAVUR.

¶33

2.DO THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THANJAVUR DISTRICT AT KUMBAKONAM.

¶34

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT WING, PATTUKOTTAI, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

¶35

4.THE DEAN, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THANJAVUR. 5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶36

+1. CC to MR.D.R.MURUGESAN Advocate SR.No.3853

¶37

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.2921 of 2019 Date :26/02/2019 AE/MMS/SAR-IV/05.03.2019/3P/7C

¶38

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

Muthu v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthu 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

M. Mariya Selvam, D/O.Manuvel Vs the Inspector of Police

M. Mariya Selvam, D/O.Manuvel Vs the Inspector of Police

Sumathi Bala, Vs the Superintendent of Customs

L.Winsly Vs the Inspector of Police

Thaniyarasu, Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Delta Treders, Vs the Branch Manager