Allowed

Pasupathi v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC12 May 2020CRL OP/7344/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted bail to a petitioner arrested for illegal possession of 220 litres of arrack under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, conditioning release on a deposit of Rs. 15,000 to the Chief Minister Public Relief Fund and execution of two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to deposit of Rs. 15,000 to Chief Minister Public Relief Fund, own bond of Rs. 10,000, and two sureties of Rs. 10,000 each with specific reporting conditions.

Pasupathi Vs the State Rep by Its — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :12.05.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.7344 of 2020

Pasupathi

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State Rep. By Inspector of Police PEW Thiruthuraipoondi Police Station, Thiruvarur District

¶10

Crime No: 374 of 2020 ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime No.374 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Swami Subramanian For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.04.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1)(g) of TNP Act in Crime No.374 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶14

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is alleged to have found in possession of 220 litres of arrack illegally. Hence the complaint.

¶15

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not involved in the above alleged offence and he is no way connected with the offence as alleged by the prosecution. However, on instructions, he would submit that in order to show his bona fide, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the Chief Minister Public Relief Fund. Further he submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 20.04.2020 onwards and hence, he seeks bail for the petitioner.

¶16

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner is in possession of 220 litres of arrack illegally. He further submitted that no previous case is pending and also submitted that the investigation is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶17

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

¶18

5.Taking into consideration the nature of allegations against the petitioner in the FIR and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 20.04.2020, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

¶19

[a] the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the Chief Minister Public Relief Fund, Tamil Nadu, and on such deposit the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing his own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees ten thousand only) before the Superintendent of the concerned prison;

¶20

(b) thereafter, the petitioner shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) each, before the concerned Magistrate on or before 08.06.2020, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed.

¶21

(c) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

¶22

(d) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. from 01.06.2020 for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

¶23

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

¶24

(f) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶25

(g) 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].

¶26

(h) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶27

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

¶28

-sd/-

¶29

12/05/2020

¶30

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

¶31

TRUE COPY

¶32

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶33

¶34

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUTHURAIPONDI, THIRUVARUR DISTRICT. 2 THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, THIRUVARUR. 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEW THIRUTHURAIPOONDI POLICE STATION, THIRUVARUR DISTRICT. 5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, SUB JAIL, MANNARGUDI 6 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THE CHIEF MINISTER PUBLIC RELIEF FUND, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI - 600 009. CC to M/S.SWAMI SUBRAMANIAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.7344/2020 Date :12/05/2020 RVR 29/06/2020

¶35

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

Pasupathi v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pasupathi v. the State Rep by Its

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

V.Suresh Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Loganathan Vs State Rep.by

Elango Vs State by

R.Gokul Vs State Represented by

Paneerselvam Vs the State Rep. by Inspector of Police

Maria Lijose Kumar Vs State Rep. by the Inspector of Police