Allowed

Karthickeyan v. State Rep. by

Madras HC5 Feb 2021CRL OP/1758/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, a lorry driver accused of transporting urea without a permit under the Essential Commodities Act, subject to strict conditions including daily police appearances and a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on anticipatory bail with strict conditions including daily police appearances, bond of Rs.10,000 with sureties, and prohibition on absconding or tampering with evidence.

Karthickeyan Vs State Rep. by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 05.02.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.1758 of 2021

¶6

Karthickeyan ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. The State Rep. by ... Respondent The Inspector of Police, Gomangalam Police Station Gomangalam. (Crime No.21 of 2021) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 21 of 2021 pending investigation on the file of the Respondent.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohammed Hasain For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶9

Totally, there are five accused and the petitioner is arrayed as A4. 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.

¶10

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a driver 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.

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is driver of the lorry. He would submit that he has not transported the urea, and he is not aware that the urea has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been transported in the lorry without any permit. That apart, the

¶12

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.

¶13

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 driver of the lorry and he has transported 595 kgs. of urea with any valid permission. 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.

¶14

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

¶15

Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is only driver of the lorry, the main allegation is only against A1, A1 was arrested and he is still in custody, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

¶16

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 separate 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:

¶17

[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;

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

[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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by

¶22

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

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

¶25

-sd/-

¶26

05/02/2021

¶27

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

¶28

TRUE COPY

¶29

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

¶30

1 THE IV JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, COIMBATORE.

¶31

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COIMBATORE. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶32

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶33

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GOMANGALAM POLICE STATION, GOMANGALAM.

¶34

+1 CC to M/S.M.MOHAMMED HASAIN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.1186

¶35

CRL OP.1758/2021 Date :05/02/2021

¶36

TA-11/02/2021

¶37

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

Karthickeyan v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthickeyan 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

Rajkumar Vs State Rep. by

S.Santhosh Vs the State Rep.by Its

Pichaimani Vs State Rep.by

Sathish Vs State Rep by

S.Surya Vs State Rep by

Tae Hyup Kim Vs State Rep by