Allowed

Ramasamy v. State Rep by

Madras HC10 Feb 2021CRL OP/1455/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, an accused in a case under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 regarding illicit urea transport, subject to strict conditions including daily police appearance and a monetary bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail (in event of arrest) within 15 days subject to bond of Rs.10,000 with sureties, daily police appearance, and other conditions.

Ramasamy Vs State Rep by — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 10.02.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN Crl.O.P.No.1455 of 2021

¶5

Ramasamy ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Gomangalam Police Station, Coimbatore District. (Crime No.21 of 2021) ... Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.21 of 2021 pending investigation on the file of the Respondent.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor ***** O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶10

Totally, there are five accused and the petitioner is arrayed as A3. He apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in Crime No. 21 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, and now, he has filed this petition seeking to grant anticipatory bail.

¶11

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a owner of the lorry and he is said to have transported 595 kgs. of urea belongs to A1 without any valid permission. Hence, the lorry was seized and he was implicated as accused. Hence, the criminal case has been registered against the petitioner and now apprehending arrest, he has filed this petition seeking for anticipatory bail.

¶12

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

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is owner of the lorry, the property belongs to A1 and A2. He would submit that he is not aware that the urea has been transported in the lorry without any permit. That apart, the only lorry was seized and at the time of occurrence, no urea was seized. He would submit that he is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the offence. He would submit that he has been falsely implicated as accused in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶14

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that A1 was arrested and he is still in jail. He would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the lorry, in which, the contraband urea bags was stocked. Accordingly, the lorry was seized and he was implicated as accused. He would further submit that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶15

I have heard and considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the records.

¶16

Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is only owner of the property, the main allegation is only against A1 and that co-accused was granted anticipatory bail, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

¶17

a) 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 IV Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, 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:

¶18

[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;

¶19

[c] the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for the period of two weeks ;

¶20

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

¶21

[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

[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];

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

-sd/10/02/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.IV, COIMBATORE. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COIMBATORE [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GOMANGALAM POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE.

¶26

+1CC to M/S M.N.BALAKRISHNAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO.1451 CRL OP.1455/2021 Date :10/02/2021 MK:16/02/2021

¶27

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

Ramasamy v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramasamy 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

Saravanan Palani Vs State Rep by

Rajesh Vs State Rep by

Sugan Vs State by

Venkatesh @ Venkatasubramaniam Vs State Rep by

Sankar @ Centaring Sankar Vs State Rep by

D.Yuvaraj Vs State by