Allowed

Senthilkumar v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC24 Jan 2022CRL OP/1495/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a criminal case involving alleged breaches of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The court imposed specific conditions including financial bond, reporting requirements, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or absconding, citing relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with conditions including execution of bond, deposit of Rs.10,000, reporting to police every Tuesday, and prohibition on tampering with evidence or absconding.

Senthilkumar Vs the State Rep.by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Senthilkumar

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24.01.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRL.O.P.No.1495 of 2022

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, P.E.W. Madhavaram Police Station, Chennai.

¶10

(Crime No.389 of 2021)

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No.389 of 2021 on the file of the Inspector of Police, P.E.W.Madhavaram Police Station, Chennai.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vinoth

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 4(1)(a), 4(1)(i) and 24 of TNP Act in Crime No.389 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that the respondent police while conducting checking in Sathyamurthy Nagar TASMAC Shop at the time two persons have sitting nearby shop and selling brandy bottles to the public subsequently they were arrested and 62 bottles of Brandy along with 34 bottles of Beer were been seized from them. Hence the complaint.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶19

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

¶20

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner seized 62 bottles of Brandy along with 34 bottles of Beer. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶22

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days after lifting of lockdown or the commencement of the Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvottriyur, on condition that the petitioner shall 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶23

[a] the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the credit of the Registered Tamil Nadu Advocate Clerk Association, Chennai within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall produce the said receipt before the Court below.

¶24

[b] the petitioner and 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.

¶25

[c] the petitioner is directed to report before the respondent police on every Tuesday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

[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 released on anticipatory 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].

¶29

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

¶30

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶31

-sd/-

¶32

24/01/2022

¶33

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

¶34

TRUE COPY

¶35

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

¶36

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVOTTRIYUR

¶37

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVALLUR(FOR INFORMATION)

¶38

3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, P.E.W.MADHAVARAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI

¶39

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶40

5 THE REGISTERED TAMIL NADU ADVOCATE CLERK ASSOCIATION, CHENNAI

¶41

CC to M/S.M.VINOTH Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.1091

¶42

CRL OP.1495/2022

¶43

Date :24/01/2022 RVR 31/01/2022

¶44

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

Senthilkumar v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthilkumar v. the 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

Kesavan Vs Inspector of Police

Aarthi @ Lalitha Vs Inspector of Police

Mayppan @ Mayavan Vs the Inspector of Police

Nagaraj Vs The Inspector of Police

Ramadas Vs the State Rep by

Chitra Vs State Rep by