Allowed

Chandrasekar v. State Rep.by

Madras HC11 Jan 2021CRL OP/20982/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras granted bail to the petitioner, a shop owner accused of possessing banned tobacco products. He was ordered to deposit Rs. 10,000 with the Tamil Nadu Advocate Clerks Association and surrender in two weeks, subject to strict reporting and non-tampering conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on deposit of Rs. 10,000 with the Tamil Nadu Advocate Clerks Association within two weeks, execution of bond with sureties, and compliance with daily reporting and other co

Chandrasekar Vs State Rep.by — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 11.01.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.20982 of 2020

¶6

Chandrasekar ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State Rep. by ... Respondent
The Inspector of Police,
Manali Police Station
Chennai.
(Crime No.2453 of 2020)
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.2453 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the Respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr. S.N.Arunkumar
For Respondent : Mr.M. Prabavathy,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶7

Totally there are 3 accused. The petitioner, who is A1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.12.2020 for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 20(1) of Cigarette and other Tobacco Acts, 2003 and 328 IPC in Crime No.2453 of 2020, seeks bail.

¶8

2 . The case of the prosecution is that on 09.12.2020, the petitioner along with other accused persons were found in possession of 868 kilograms of banned tobacco products. Hence, a case has been registered against the petitioner.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only the petty shop owner and he is no way connected with the offence. He would further submit that co-accused has already been released on bail. Hence, he seeks for grant of bail to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is prepared to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) without prejudice to his defence.

¶10

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

¶11

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner was found in possession of huge quantity of banned tobacco products and the petitioner is the main accused. Hence, she opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶12

Considering the said facts and circumstances and taking note of the fact that the petitioner is prepared to deposit Rs.10,000/- without prejudice to his contention and considering the fact that co-accused in this case has been granted bail and also considering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶13

(a) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, and on further conditions that:

¶14

(b) 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;

¶15

(c) the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the credit of Tamil Nadu Advocate Clerks Association, Indian Bank, High Court Branch, (A/c.No.484026006, IFSC No.IDIB 000 M 157, E.Mail. tnaca 1913 @ gmail.com.), within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court

¶16

(d) the petitioner, on his release from prison, shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶17

(d) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(g) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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

(h) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

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

¶23

-sd/-

¶24

11/01/2021

¶25

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

¶26

TRUE COPY

¶27

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

¶28

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVOTTIYUR, CHENNAI

¶29

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVALLUR. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶30

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANALI POLICE STATION, CHENNAI. 5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL, CHENNAI.

¶31

6 TAMIL NADU ADVOCATE CLERKS ASSOCIATION, INDIAN BANK, HIGH COURT BRANCH, (A/C.NO.484026006, IFSC NO.IDIB 000 M 157, E.MAIL. TNACA 1913 @ GMAIL.COM.)

¶32

+1 CC to M/S.S.N.ARUNKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.369

¶33

CRL OP.20982/2020 Date :11/01/2021

¶34

TA-11/01/2021

¶35

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

Chandrasekar v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrasekar 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

Ganabathy Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Sobhana Vs State Rep by

Subarata Nama Vs the State Rep by

D.Janakiraman Vs the State Rep.by

Karunakaran Vs State by

Karthick Vs the State Rep.by