Allowed

Punniyavathi v. State Rep.by

Madras HC12 May 2023CRL OP/11179/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC, the High Court allowed the release of the petitioner, a woman accused of illegal possession of country arrack. Considering her gender and revoked detention, the court granted bail subject to conditions including surrendering to police and registering a FIR upon absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail for Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to reporting to police and other conditions.

Punniyavathi Vs State Rep.by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.11179 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.05.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.11179 of 2023

Punniyavathi

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, PEW-Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶11

(Crime No.215 of 2023).

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.,

¶14

pleased to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail, in Crime No.215 of 2023,

¶15

pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan

¶17

For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side)

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.11179 of 2023

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.03.2023, for the offence punishable under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A)(ii) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, in connection with Crime No.215 of 2023, registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that on receiving a secret information, the respondent Police along with his team went to the scene of occurrence and they found that the petitioner to be in illegal possession of 111 litres of country arrack. Hence the case.

¶23

This is the second bail application. The earlier bail applilcation was closed on 11.05.2023 on the ground that the petitioner was detention under the Act of 1982 as “Bootlegger”. Today, Mr.C.C.Chellappan, the learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned before this Court that the petitioner's detention was revoked by the Advisory Board on 28.04.2023. Therefore, this Court granted permission to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file the present bail petition.

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.11179 of 2023

¶26

Today, when the matter was called the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has two previous cases and was in possession of country arrack 111 litres and also confirmed that the petitioner's detention under Act 14 of 1982 was revoked.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶28

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

¶29

Considering the fact that the petitioner is a lady and the petitioner's detention under the Act of 14 of 1982 has been revoked and the period of the incarceration suffered by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to allow the petition on the following conditions:

¶30

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

¶31

his executing 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 learned

¶32

Judicial Magistrate, Chengam Tiruvannamalai District, and on further conditions that:

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶34

3/6

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.11179 of 2023

¶36

[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;

¶37

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

[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];

¶41

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

¶42

12.05.2023

¶43

dk/vkr Note : Office to issue order copy on 12.05.2023

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶45

4/6

¶46

Crl.O.P.No.11179 of 2023

¶47

¶48

The Judicial Magistrate, Chengam Tiruvannamalai District.

¶49

2.The Inspector of Police, PEW-Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶50

3.The Suprintendent Special Prison for Women Vellore

¶51

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶53

Crl.O.P.No.11179 of 2023

¶54

SUNDER MOHAN, J

¶55

dk/vkr

¶56

Crl.O.P.No.11179 of 2023

¶57

12.05.2023

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

Punniyavathi v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punniyavathi 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

Ravi Bharathi Vs State Rep.by

Ramalingam Vs State Rep by Station House Officer

Murugan Vs State Rep by

Rajasekar Vs The Inspector of Police

Kesava Kounder(Died) Vs Chandra Ammal

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Selvakumar