Allowed

Nalini v. State Rep by

Madras HC4 Dec 2020CRL OP/19011/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted bail to the petitioner, who was in judicial custody accused of illegal possession of Ganja under the NDPS Act. Bail was released on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and various conditions including daily reporting and a prohibition on tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of daily reporting and no tampering with evidence.

Nalini Vs State Rep by — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.12.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.19011 of 2020

Nalini

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police Thiruvannamalai Town Police Station Thiruvannamalai District Crime No.3531 of 2020

¶10

..Respondent

¶11

(Suo motu amended today)

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.3531 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the respondent.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Sathyaraj

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.T.Shanmugarajeswaran

¶15

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.10.2020, for the alleged offence under Section 8 (c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.3531 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of 1.100 kgs of Ganja. Hence the complaint came to be registered.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner is in custody from 07.10.2020 and hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the case property has been recovered and there is no previous case against the petitioner. However, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶20

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ subject to the following conditions:

¶21

a) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on her 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 Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvannamalai, and on further condition that:

¶22

[b] 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 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

¶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].

¶27

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶28

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.

¶29

-sd/-

¶30

04/12/2020

¶31

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶32

TRUE COPY

¶33

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.I, THIRUVANNAMALAI

¶37

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVANNAMALAI(FOR INFORMATION) 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶38

4 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUVANNAMALAI TOWN POLICE STATION, THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT 5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, SPECIAL PRISON FOR WOMEN, VELLORE

¶39

CC to M/S SATHIYARAJ E. Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.7923 CRL OP.19011/2020 Date :04/12/2020 RVR 08/12/2020

¶40

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

Nalini v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalini v. State Rep by

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

Paramananthan Vs State Rep.by

Ravichandran Vs the State Rep.by

P.Karthick Vs The Inspector of Police

Prasanna Vs State Represented by

Thangarasu @ Thangaraj Vs State Rep by

Soni @ Rajagopal Vs The Inspector of Police