Allowed

Sakthivel v. the State Rep by

Madras HC11 Feb 2022CRL OP/3045/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail petition was filed by two accused persons charged under the NDPS Act for illegal possession of 10 kgs of Ganja. The High Court granted bail considering the long period of incarceration and near completion of investigation, subject to deposit of money and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners are directed to deposit Rs.10,000 each to the Registered Advocate Clerks Association and execute two sureties for Rs.10,000 each.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.02.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.3045 of 2022

¶6

1.Sakthivel 2.Chinnasamy

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Paparapatti Police Station, Dharmapuri District. (Crime No.509 of 2021)

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.509 of 2021 on the file of the respondent.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Ponraj

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.Baskaran

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioners who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.11.2021 for the offences under Sections 8 (c ), r/w 20 (b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.509 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, when the respondent police were on regular patrol found that the petitioners were in illegal possession of 18 kgs of Ganja. Hence, the complaint.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, on instruction, the petitioners on his own volition, without prejudice his rights, is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/each for charitable purpose, as may be directed by this Court. He

¶17

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

¶18

further submits that the petitioner was suffering incarceration for 100 days from 14.11.2021. Hence, he seek to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶19

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would raise objection stating that the petitioner was in illegal possession of 18 kgs of Ganja and he further submitted that the petitioners have no previous case and the investigation was almost completed.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by both counsel and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners and the investigation was almost completed and the petitioners on their own volition, without prejudice his rights, is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each for charitable purpose, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with conditions.

¶21

(a) the petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) (each) to the Registered Advocate Clerks Association, Dharmapuri, on such deposit, the petitioners shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), before the learned Judicial magistrate, Pennagaram failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically;

¶22

(b)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;

¶23

(c) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two months and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

¶24

(d)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶25

(e)the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶26

(f)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]; and;

¶27

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

¶28

(g)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶29

-sd/11/02/2022

¶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, PENNAGARAM.

¶34

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DHARMAPURI [FOR INFORMATION].

¶35

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAPARAPATTI POLICE STATION, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT.

¶36

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL, SALEM.

¶37

5 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶38

6 THE REGISTERED ADVOCATE CLERKS ASSOCIATION, DHARMAPURI.

¶39

CC to M/S.N.PONRAJ Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶40

CRL OP.3045/2022 Date :11/02/2022 JPA 14/02/2022

¶41

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

Sakthivel v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakthivel 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

A.Saravanan Vs The Inspector of Police

S.Dinesh Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

C.Devika Vs Universal Trading

Chirag Jayanthilal Manjithia Vs State Rep by

M.Rubakmanikandan Vs the Superintendent of Customs

John Joseph Vs State Rep by