Allowed

A. Abbas v. State Rep by

Madras HC2 Feb 2022CRL OP/2236/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an IPC 328 case alleging tobacco smuggling. The petitioner was ordered to deposit Rs.50,000 and execute a bond with sureties, subject to daily police reporting and restrictions on tampering with evidence or fleeing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on deposit of Rs.50,000, bond with sureties, daily police reporting, and compliance with other specific conditions.

A. Abbas Vs State Rep by — Corruption | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.02.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.2236 of 2022

¶6

A.Abbas ...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State represented by ...Respondent The Inspector of Police, Vadavalli Police Station, Coimbatore. (Crime No.767 of 2021)

¶9

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 in connection with Crime No.767 of 2021 on the file of the respondent.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Nirmal Krishnan

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Section 328 of IPC r/w Section 24(1) of Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 in Crime No.767 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶14

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the police official and on the date of occurrence, during that time checking, they intercepted one Bolero Maxi Truck Plus Vehicle and enquired with the driver of the vehicle namely Sikkandar Basha. He did not give proper answer. On suspicion, the police officials checked the vehicle and found 734 kgs of Banned Tobacco products in white colour bags. Hence this case.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that A1 already arrested and released on bail. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

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

¶19

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 No.6 at Coimbatore, 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:

¶20

[a] the petitioner are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the credit of the Tamil Nadu Registered Advocate Clerks 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.

¶21

[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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

[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

¶26

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

¶27

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].

¶28

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

¶29

-sd/02/02/2022

¶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. TO

¶33

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.6, COIMBATORE.

¶34

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COIMBATORE. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶35

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAVALLI POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE.

¶36

5 THE REGISTERED ADVOCATE CLERKS ASSOCIATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT.

¶37

+1 CC to M/S.G.NIRMAL KRISHNAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.1675

CRL OP.2236/2022

Date :02/02/2022

TA-04/02/2022

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

A. Abbas v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Abbas 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

A.Rajendran Vs State Rep by

Manikandan Vs State Rep by

Suresh Vs State Rep by

Haijulal Vs State Rep. by

S.Balaji Vs Inspector of Police

Manjula Vs State Rep by