Dismissed

Sivakumar v. State Rep by

Madras HC24 Nov 2021CRL OP/22274/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail petition was dismissed by the Madras High Court. The petitioners were arrested for illegal transportation of over 100 bundles of banned tobacco products. The court held that the nature of the offence and the large quantity of banned products precluded the grant of bail, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Bail petition was dismissed; no release from judicial custody granted.

Sivakumar Vs State Rep by — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V. THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.22274 of 2021

¶7

1 SIVAKUMAR [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 RAJESHKANNAN

¶8

¶9

STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, METTUR POLICE STATION, METTUR, SALEM DISTRICT.

¶10

CRIME NO.265 OF 2021.

¶11

For Petitioners : M/S.M.SENTHIL KUMAR Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : MR.N.S.SUGANTHAN, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶16

The petitioners who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.11.2021 for the offences under Sections 20(2) of Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Acts 2003 and Sections 273 and 328 of IPC, in Crime No.265 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that on 12.11.2021 at about 8.30 a.m., when the respondent police officials were conducting raid on the Salem to Mettur Road, near M.G.R. Bridge, the petitioners were found in illegal transporting of 104 bundles of banned tobacco products in two two wheelers. Hence, the complaint.

¶18

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He

¶19

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

¶20

would further submit that the petitioners have been suffering incarceration for about 25 days from 12.11.2021 and hence, he would pray for grant of bail to the petitioners.

¶21

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would raise strong objection stating that the petitioners were found in illegal transportation of 104 bundles of banned tobacco products worth about more than Rs.2 lakhs.

¶22

5.On seeing the nature of offence and the quantity of the banned tobacco products, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶23

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

¶24

TRUE COPY

¶25

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

¶26

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, METTUR POLICE STATION, METTUR, SALEM DISTRICT.

¶27

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, SALEM.

¶28

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶29

CC to M/S.M.SENTHIL KUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶30

CRL OP.22274/2021 Date :24/11/2021 JPA 02/12/2021

¶31

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

Sivakumar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivakumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Vs the State Rep by

Pugazh Vs State Rep by

Mani Vs the State Rep by

Navas Sharif Vs the State Rep.by

Najim Hussain Vs State Rep.by

Wasim Akram Vs the State Rep. by