Allowed

S.Ramesh v. State Rep by

Madras HC11 May 2022CRL OP/10939/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving illegal possession of illicit liquor mixed with poisonous substances. The court held custodial interrogation unnecessary due to no prior pending cases and imposed strict conditions, including reporting and surrendering within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail if arrested or appears within 15 days, subject to executing a bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties and complying with conditions to report daily, not abscond, and not tamper

S.Ramesh Vs State Rep by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Eleventh day of May Two Thousand Twenty Two

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice V. SIVAGNANAM

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.10939 of 2022

¶7

S.RAMESH [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEW-NAGAPATTINAM, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT (CRIME NO.549 OF 2022)

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S M.GOVINDARAJU Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR.S.SUGENDRAN, Additional public Prosecutor

¶12

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under section 4(1)(aaa) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, in Crime No.549 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of 110 litres of illicit liquor mixed with poisonous substances. Hence, the complaint.

¶16

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. Hence, he pleads for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner.

¶18

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

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case and hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

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 Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagapattinam, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five 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 and on further condition that:

¶21

(a) the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(e) 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 has 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]; and;

¶26

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

¶27

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶28

-sd/-

¶29

11/05/2022

¶30

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

¶31

TRUE COPY

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.I, NAGAPATTINAM

¶35

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NAGAPATTINAM [FOR INFORMATION]

¶36

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEW-NAGAPATTINAM, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT

¶37

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶38

+1 CC to M/S M.GOVINDARAJU Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.6913

¶39

CRL OP.10939/2022

¶40

Date :11/05/2022 JPA 13/05/2022

¶41

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

S.Ramesh v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ramesh 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

Senthurpandi Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Thangapandi Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

M.Manickam Vs The Inspector of Police

Vasanth Vs State Rep by

S.Ramesh Vs State Rep by

Prabakaran Vs the State Rep by Its