Allowed

Thileep Kumar v. State Rep by

Madras HC15 Sept 2022CRL OP/20639/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Section 439 CrPC regarding NDPS Act offences, the court granted bail to a teenage petitioner. The court found a prima facie case under Section 37 NDPS Act, considering the petitioner's age and that contraband was not recovered from him. Bail was granted with specific conditions including reporting to police and furnishing sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on executing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including daily reporting to police and restricting absconding or tampering with evidence.

Thileep Kumar Vs State Rep by — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.20639 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.09.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.20639 of 2022

Thileep Kumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, N2 Kasimedu Police Station, Chennai.

¶11

(Crime No.143 of 2022)

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in Crime No.143 of 2022, pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

1/8

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.20639 of 2022

¶19

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.07.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A)

¶20

& 22(c) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.143 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that on 06.07.2022 at about

¶22

20.00hours, on receipt of a secret information and entering the same in the general diary, the Sub-Inspector of Police along with the Police team went to the Kasimedu Power Kuppam Subway, where they found that the accused were found in possession of 8 Lysergic Acid Diethylamide stamps. The respondent have seized the contraband under the cover of seizure mahazar and arrested the accused persons and a case in Crime No.143 of 2022 under

¶23

Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(c) of NDPS Act. Hence the case.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

¶25

that the petitioner is a teenage boy aged about 19 years and he is an innocent

¶26

2/8

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.20639 of 2022

¶29

person. He would further submit that the respondent had earlier registered a case in Crime No.142 of 2022 against the petitioner and others on the complaint given by one Rajesh and the case was stated to have been committed at 13.45 hours on 06.07.2022 and the accused were arrested and they were brutally assaulted by the respondent Police in the Police Station and thereafter, the respondent have foisted a false case in Crime No.143 of 2022 as if the petitioner and other accused were found in illegal possession of 8 Lysergic Acid Diethylamide stamps and the very registration of the case will show that it is a foisted case.

¶30

The learned counsel would submit that even as per the First Information Report in Crime No.143 of 2022, the petitioners were stated to have been found near Kasimedu Power Kuppam Subway, which is beyond the jurisdictional limit of the respondent Police. He would further submit that the contraband was stated to be recovered from the first accused and he has also gave the confession statement with regard to the same. He would also submit that no confession statement has been recorded from the petitioner, as if the petitioner had a knowledge about the first accused being in possession

¶31

3/8

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.20639 of 2022

¶34

of the contraband. He also stated that the petitioner has been granted with bail in connection with the Crime No.142 of 2022 by the Court of Sessions on 04.08.2022 and the present case has been put up only to keep the petitioner in continued detention. He would further submit that it is a clear case where the petitioner has made out a prima facie case satisfying the requirements of Section 37 of NDPS Act for grant of bail and thereby, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶35

The respondent has filed a detailed counter in this case. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner along with the other accused assaulted one Rajesh and based on which the case in Crime No.142 of 2022 has been registered for the offence under Sections341, 294(b), 323 & 307 IPC and on the very same day, when the respondent went on search of the petitioner, they were standing in Kasimedu Power Kuppam Subway and they were arrested and the first accused was found in possession of 8 Lysergic Acid Diethylamide stamps totally weighing 130 milligrams, which is a commercial quantity. He would also submit that the petitioner was arrested based on the confession

¶36

4/8

¶37

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

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.20639 of 2022

¶39

statement of the first accused. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record including the documents in the typed set of papers furnished by the petitioner.

¶41

This Court finds that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case satisfying the requirements under Section 37 of NDPS Act and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of

¶42

the fact that the age of the petitioner and that the contraband has not been recovered from the petitioner , this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶43

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on

¶44

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

¶45

5/8

¶46

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

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.20639 of 2022

¶48

the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town,) Chennai, and

¶49

on further conditions that:

¶50

[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;

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

[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];

¶55

6/8

¶56

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

¶57

Crl.O.P.No.20639 of 2022

¶58

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR

¶59

can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

15.09.2022

ham

The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

¶64

The Sub-Inspector of Police, N2 Kasimedu Police Station, Chennai.

¶65

The Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai.

¶66

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶67

7/8

¶68

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

¶69

Crl.O.P.No.20639 of 2022

¶70

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA., J.

¶71

ham

¶72

Crl.O.P.No.20639 of 2022

¶73

15.09.2022

¶74

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

¶75

8/8

Thileep Kumar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thileep Kumar 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

S.Jeyanthi Vs Inspector of Police

G.Ravi Vs State Rep.by

Stephen @ Stephenraj Vs the State Rep by Its

Alzameer Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Gunal @ Gunaseelan Vs the State Rep by Its

R. Priyadharshini Vs the State Rep by Its