Allowed

Anbazhagan v. State Rep by

Madras HC12 Oct 2022CRL OP/21836/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of illegal possession of spurious liquor. Bail was conditioned on reporting twice daily, executing a bond, and refraining from tampering with evidence or witnesses. The court empowered authorities to register a fresh FIR for absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail subject to daily police reporting, bond execution, and conditions against tampering with evidence or absconding.

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

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.21836 of 2022

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.21836 of 2022

¶3

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

¶4

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 484, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC read with Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act in Crime No.1335 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons were found in illegal possession of Express Brandy – 12 Box, Black Pearl Brandy – 06 Box and without label – 1 Box each containing 48 bottles (180 ml each) of spurious liquor worth about Rs.2,24,640/-. Hence, the case.

¶6

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

¶7

the petitioner are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case based on the confession of the arrested co-accused. He would further submit that the co-accused was arrested and released on bail.

¶8

Page 1 of 4

¶9

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

¶10

Crl.O.P.No.21836 of 2022

¶11

Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶12

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for

¶13

the respondent would submit that the petitioners are working in a TASMAC bar and along with the other accused persons, they were selling spurious liquor in the black market. He would further submit that there is no previous case pending as against them. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel. Taking into consideration the

¶15

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

¶16

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on

¶17

bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before

¶18

the learned District Munsif Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Kurinjipadi,

¶19

on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.21836 of 2022

¶23

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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶24

[a] the petitioners 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

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m., until further orders.

¶26

[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶27

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶28

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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].

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.21836 of 2022

¶32

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. mpl

¶33

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

¶34

12.10.2022

¶35

mpl

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.21836 of 2022

¶37

Page 4 of 4

¶38

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

Anbazhagan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anbazhagan 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

Anoop Madhavan Cheriyandi Vs the State Rep by

Anoop Madhavan Cheriyandi Vs State Rep by

Anoop Madhavan Cheriyandi Vs Iop, Villupuram District

Hayath @ Hayathullah Vs State Rep by

V.Dhayalamani Vs State Rep by

S.Rathinakumar Vs State Rep by