Allowed

Manikandan v. State by

Madras HC17 Mar 2021CRL OP/5290/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, in a criminal original petition under Section 438 CrPC, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of illegal possession of alcohol. The grant was conditioned on regular reporting, non-tampering with evidence, and avoiding abscondence, with specific instructions for the Magistrate to act on breach of conditions.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail conditioned on reporting to police daily for two weeks, submitting a bond with sureties, and not tampering with evidence or absconding.

Manikandan Vs State by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.03.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.5290 of 2021

¶6

Manikandan ... Petitioner

¶7

-VsState by ... Respondent The Inspector of Police, PEW- Namakkal, Namakkal District. (Crime No.218 of 2021)

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police, in the case pending investigation in Crime No.218 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. M.Marimuthu For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶10

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶11

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 4 (1)(g), 4(1) (a), and 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, in Crime No.218 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶12

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 40 liters of fresh wash and 2 liters of ID Arrack. Hence, a complaint was registered.

¶13

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner never indulged in any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶14

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

¶15

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 40 liters of fresh wash and 2 liters of ID Arrack. He further submitted that there are two previous cases pending against the petitioner. However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶16

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶17

6.Considering the fact that the entire contraband has already been seized, and the quantity of the contraband seized by the police, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with the following conditions:

¶18

[a] 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 Judicial Magistrate, Senthamangalam, Namakkal District, on executing 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned:

¶19

[b] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the respondent/police may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

[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 is 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].

¶24

[g] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ `

¶25

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

¶26

-sd/17/03/2021

¶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
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
SENTHAMANGALAM, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
NAMAKKAL. [FOR INFORMATION]
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PEW-NAMAKKAL,
NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.
+1 CC to M/S.M.MARIMUTHU Advocate on payment of necessary
charges SR.NO.3656
CRL OP.5290/2021
Date :17/03/2021
TA-08/04/2021

¶30

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

Manikandan v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan v. State 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

Prathap Vs State Rep.by

Sathiyanathan Vs State Rep.by

Karthick Vs the State Rep.by

K.Santhiya Vs State Rep.by

Raja @ Aasirvatham Vs State Rep by

Palanimalai Vs State Rep.by