Allowed

P.Prasanth @ Appu v. State Rep by

Madras HC20 Sept 2022CRL OP/20621/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail petition under Section 439 CrPC was filed by the petitioner, arrested for possession of ganja. The court granted bail, imposing daily reporting and other standard conditions, considering the quantity involved and lack of prior record.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail by executing a bond for Rs.25,000 with two sureties and complying with daily reporting and other conditions.

P.Prasanth @ Appu Vs State Rep by — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.20621 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.09.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.20621 of 2022

P.Prasanth @ Appu

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, N-4, Fishing Harbour Police Station, Washermenpet District, Chennai. Crime No.148 of 2022 ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.148 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sathish Kumar

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/6

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.20621 of 2022

¶18

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 16.07.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) of

¶19

NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.148 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that on receipt of the secret information, when the respondent police conducted a search, the petitioner was found in possession of 1.2 Kgs of Ganja. Hence, the complaint.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and the case has been put up for statistical purpose. He would also submit that there are no previous cases as against the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner is in custody from 16.07.2022 Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶22

The respondent has filed a detailed counter. The learned

¶23

2/6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.20621 of 2022

¶26

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner was found in possession of 1.2 Kgs of Ganja. He would also state that there are no previous cases as against the petitioner. However, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶27

Heard both the learned counsel and perused the materials

¶28

available on record.

¶29

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,

¶30

the submissions made by the learned counsel and also the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner and that there is no previous case as against the petitioner and also the minimum quantity of the contraband, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶31

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing 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 learned

¶32

XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, and on further

¶33

3/6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.20621 of 2022

¶36

conditions that:

¶37

[a] 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;

¶38

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., and 05.30 p.m., until further orders;

¶39

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶40

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

¶41

[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 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];

¶42

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

¶43

4/6

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

Crl.O.P.No.20621 of 2022

20.09.2022

rgi

The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

¶50

The Inspector of Police, N-4, Fishing Harbour Police Station, Washermenpet District, Chennai.

¶51

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal.

¶52

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶53

5/6

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

Crl.O.P.No.20621 of 2022

¶56

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA., J.

¶57

rgi

¶58

Crl.O.P.No.20621 of 2022

¶59

20.09.2022

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

6/6

P.Prasanth @ Appu v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Prasanth @ Appu 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

Danasekaran Vs State Rep by the Inspector of Police

K.Karthikeyan Vs Inspector of Police

K.Sathiyabalan Vs State Rep by

M.Silambarasan Vs State Rep.by

Rajkavin Vs State Rep by the

Santhoshkumar Vs State Rep by