Allowed

Rajesh Kannan v. State Rep.by Its

Madras HC17 Apr 2023CRL OP/5767/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application under Section 439 CrPC was filed challenging the arrest in an NDPS case. The High Court, noting the petitioner's willingness to deposit funds and considering Section 37 of the NDPS Act, granted bail subject to conditions including a non-refundable deposit and furnishing a bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on condition of deporting Rs.25,000 non-refundably and executing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Rajesh Kannan Vs State Rep.by Its — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.5767 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.5767 of 2023

Rajesh Kannan

... Petitioner

Vs.

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore District.

¶11

(Crime No.287 of 2022).

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in C.C.No.148 of 2022 on the file of the Learned Additional District Judge / Presiding

¶14

Officer, Special Court for Essential Commodities Act cases, Coimbatore.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Suresh For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate(Crl.side)

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/8

¶17

1/8

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.5767 of 2023

¶20

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.12.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of NDPS Act in Crime No.287 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that based on the secret information the respondent police went to the scene of occurrence and conducted a search. At that time, the respondent police seized 50 kg of ganja from A1. Based on the confession statement of A1, this petitioner was arrayed as an accused who said to have purchased the ganja from Theni District. Hence, the complaint.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner other than the confession statememt recorded from A1, there is no other material to connect the petitioner to the alleged offence and he is in judicial custody from 01.12.2022. He also submitted that investigation is completed and the case is

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.5767 of 2023

¶25

posed for trial. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶26

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the respondent police seized 50 kg of ganja from A1. Based on the confession of A1, this petitioner was arrayed as an accused who said to have purchased the ganja from Theni District. He also submitted that the petitioner is involved in another Cr.No.533 of 2022, under Section 8(C), read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 29 of NDPS Act, however, there was no recovery from him in that case also. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶27

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, without prejudice to his defense and contention, is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- to any welfare scheme run by the Government. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶28

6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) and perused the materials available on

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.5767 of 2023

¶31

record.

¶32

On considering the voluntary submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) the credit of " The Government Medical Hospital, Coimbatore ", without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court.

¶33

Merely, because the petitioner has deposited the said amount, it would not amount to admission of his guilt. Therefore, it is open to the trial Court to deal with the case independently.

¶34

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by either side and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner has also satisfied the twin conditions required under Section 37 of NDPS Act and also considering that the petitioner has come forward to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the credit of "The Government

¶35

Medical Hospital, Coimbatore", this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶36

4/8

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.5767 of 2023

¶39

10.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to make a non-refundable deposit of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) by way of Demand Draft/RTGS/NEFT to "The Government Medical Hospital, Coimbatore" without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court, on such deposit and production of proof, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on 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 t he Additional District Judge / Presiding Officer, Special Court for Essential Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore. and on further conditions that:

¶40

[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;

¶41

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶42

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

¶43

5/8

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8

¶45

Crl.O.P.No.5767 of 2023

¶46

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence

¶47

or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶48

[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];

¶49

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

¶50

17.04.2023

¶51

gbi

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8

¶53

6/8

¶54

Crl.O.P.No.5767 of 2023

¶55

¶56

The Additional District Judge / Presiding Officer, Special Court for Essential Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore.

¶57

2.The Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore District.

¶58

The Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶59

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/8

¶61

Crl.O.P.No.5767 of 2023

¶62

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J.

¶63

gbi

¶64

Crl.O.P.No.5767 of 2023

¶65

17.04.2023

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8

Rajesh Kannan v. State Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kannan v. State Rep.by Its

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

Esurajan @ Yesuraj Vs the Union Territory of Puducherry Rep.by

S.Manoharan Vs Inspector of Police

Jubin Baby Vs the Station House Officer

Padman Samal Vs State Rep.by the Inspector of Police

Rasu Kumar Vs Inspector of Police

E. Naresh Kumar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police