Allowed

Jayanthi v. State by

Madras HC14 Dec 2023CRL OP/27332/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving the transporting of PDS rice under the Essential Commodities Act. The order mandates a Rs.15,000 non-refundable deposit for needy patients and imposes specific reporting and non-tampering conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to deposit of Rs.15,000 for hospital treatment and execution of bond with conditions.

Jayanthi Vs State by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.27332 of 2023

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.27332 of 2023

¶3

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

¶4

The petitioner/A1 seeks anticipatory bail in Crime No.206 of 2023 registered by the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(i) a(ii) of E.C. Act 1955.

¶5

2.It is the case of the respondent that the accused were transporting

¶6

1100 kgs of PDS rice worth about Rs.6,215/- in TATA vehicle bearing Registration No.KA0AH 1880. A2 had been arrested and granted bail.

¶7

3.Taking all the other factors into consideration, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, but however, directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as non refundable deposit to the credit of Crime No.206 of 2023 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri. The said amount may be handed over by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri

¶8

to the Dean, Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, for treating the needy

¶9

patients .

¶10

1/4

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶12

Crl.O.P.No.27332 of 2023

¶13

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on 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 the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate 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:

¶14

[a] 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.

¶15

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police once a week i.e., every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for the interrogation.

¶16

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

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶18

2/4

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.27332 of 2023

¶20

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

¶21

[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 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].

¶22

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

¶23

14.12.2023

¶24

rjr

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.27332 of 2023

¶27

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶28

rjr

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.27332 of 2023

¶30

14.12.2023

¶31

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

Jayanthi v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanthi v. State 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. Ananda Raj Vs the State, Rep by the Inspector of Police

P. Subramani Vs State Represented by

K.R.Natesh Krishna Vs State Rep.by

E.Karthick Vs State Rep by

Sivalingaswami Vs Inspector of Police

Rajesh Vs Inspector of Police