Allowed

Mullaram v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC27 Jan 2023CRL OP/539/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to petitioners arrested for possession of banned tobacco products under IPC and COTPA. Considering nearly completed investigation and incarceration period, bail was granted with conditions including financial deposit, regular police appearances, and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail after depositing Rs. 50,000 each as non-refundable and executing bonds with two sureties each for Rs. 10,000.

Mullaram Vs Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.539 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 27.01.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

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

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.539 of 2023

¶7

Mullaram, S/o. Lakshman Ram

¶8

Sujaram, S/o. Kokka Ram

¶9

Thalaram,

¶10

S/o. Veeraram

¶11

.. Petitioners Vs.

¶12

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Variety Hall Road Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore Dt. (Crime No.226 of 2022) .. Respondent

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.226 of

¶14

2022 on the file of respondent police.

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.539 of 2023

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.P.M.Jayachandran For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.12.2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 273, 328 I.P.C. r/w 7 (1), 20(1) of Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 in Crime No.226 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that on 24.12.2022 at about 09.45 p.m., when the respondent police conducted a vehicle checkup, they intercepted a car and on search, they found the driver of vehicle along with these petitioners herein were in illegal possession of 1386 kgs. of tobacoo products, which was banned by the State Government. Hence, the complaint.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that 1^st

¶23

petitioner is owner of vehicle and 2^nd petitioner is driver of vehicle. He

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.539 of 2023

¶27

would submit that they did not aware about the bags, which contained banned tobacco products. He would submit that they have not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police and they are no way connected with the offence. He would submit that they have been falsely implicated in this case for statistical purpose. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioners have been suffering incarceration for more than 33 days from 24.12.2022. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶28

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that there is no previous case pending against the petitioners. He would also submit that if they are released on bail, they will tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶29

Considering fact that the investigation is almost completed, no

¶30

previous case pending against the petitioners and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.539 of 2023

¶34

Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of

¶35

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each as non-refundable deposit to the credit of registered Coimbatore Advocates Clerks

¶36

Welfare Association, Coimbatore and on such deposit, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on executing their separate bonds 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 Judicial Magistrate

¶37

No.5, Coimbatore, and on further conditions that::

¶38

(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;

¶39

(b) the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for the period of eight weeks.

¶40

¶41

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

¶42

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions,

¶43

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

¶44

Crl.O.P.No.539 of 2023

¶45

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;

¶46

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

27.01.2023

rpp

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.5, Coimbatore.

¶51

2.The Inspector of Police, Variety Hall Road Police Station, Coimbatore City and Dt.

¶52

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶53

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶54

5/6

¶55

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

¶56

Crl.O.P.No.539 of 2023

¶57

T.V.THAMILSELVI , J.

¶58

rpp

¶59

Crl.O.P.No.539 of 2023

¶60

27.01.2023

¶61

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

Mullaram v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mullaram v. Inspector of Police

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

Thirunavukkarasu Vs the State Rep.by

Vijay Vs the State Rep by Its

R.Saravanan Vs Deputy Commissioner of Police

S.Raghu Bernard Vs the State Rep by Its

Murugan Tmr Vs the State Rep by Its

Maheswaran Vs Station House Officer