Allowed

Balu @ Balakrishnan v. State Rep by

Madras HC2 Jul 2020CRL OP/8958/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of transporting PDS rice without permission. The court directed a non-refundable deposit and several conditions including daily reporting and surrendering sureties, citing relevant precedent.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to deposit of Rs.50,000, posting sureties, daily reporting, and execution of a bond.

Balu @ Balakrishnan Vs State Rep by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.07.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.8958 of 2020

¶6

Balu @ Balakrishnan ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State rep. By ...Respondent
The Inspector of Police,
C.S.C.I.D Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
(Crime No.4 of 2020)
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of arrest in Crime No.04 of 2020 on the file of the respondent
Police.
For Petitioner: Mr.M.Jayachandran
For Respondent: Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER

¶7

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(i) a (ii) of EC Act 1955 in Crime No.4 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶8

The case of the prosecution is that on 12.01.2020, the respondent Police found that the Eacher Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN433336 was transported 1,100 kgs of PDS rice without getting permission from the Government. Therefore, the driver of the vehicle was arrested and based on the confession of the driver, the petitioner was arrayed as A-2 in this case.

¶9

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected with the alleged offence. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶10

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

¶11

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner was found in possession of 1,100 Kgs of PDS rice. He would also submit that two previous cases are pending against the petitioner. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶12

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as non refundable deposit to the credit of the Chief Minister's Public Relief Fund, Tamil Nadu without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court. Merely, because the petitioner has deposited the said amount, it would not amount to admission of his guilt. Therefore, it is open to the trial Court to deal with the case independently.

¶13

Taking note of the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as non refundable deposit to the credit of the Chief Minister's Public Relief Fund, Tamil Nadu within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready and on such deposit the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate - I, Krishnagiri, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties (one shall be a blood related surety) 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶14

[a] 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.

¶15

[b] the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the credit of the Chief Minister's Public Relief Fund, Tamil Nadu and shall produce the said receipt before the Court below.

¶16

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

¶17

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶18

[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶19

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

¶20

[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].

¶21

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

¶22

-sd/-

¶23

02/07/2020

¶24

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

¶25

TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO I,
KRISHNAGIRI.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
KRISHNAGIRI.
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
C.S.C.I.D POLICE STATION,
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.

¶26

5 THE CHIEF MINISTER PUBLIC RELIEF FUND, TAMIL NADU. CC to M/S M.JAYACHANDRAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.8958/2020 Date :02/07/2020 MN-TA-30/07/2020

¶27

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

Balu @ Balakrishnan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balu @ Balakrishnan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.K.Janakiraman Vs State Rep by

V .Govindasamy Vs the Inspector of Police

T.Karunanidhi Vs The Inspector of Police

Thirumurugadinesh Vs State Rep by

Sheik Beer Vs State Rep by

Prabu Vs The Sub Inspector of Police