Allowed

Karthick v. State Rep.by

Madras HC24 Apr 2023CRL OP/8826/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order deals with a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, arrested for NDPS offenses, sought release after 66 days of custody. The Court granted bail subject to strict conditions including daily reporting and bond execution.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by executing a bond for Rs.15,000 with two sureties, subject to daily police reporting and various conditions, taking into account 66 days of incarceration.

Karthick Vs State Rep.by — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.8826 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.8826 of 2023

Karthick

... Petitioner/A1

Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, PEW Adyar Police Station, Chennai.

¶11

(Crime No.54 of 2023).

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail, in connection with the Crime No.54 of 2023, pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mrs.M.Rakhi For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

1/6

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.8826 of 2023

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.02.2023 for the offence under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 29(1) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, in Crime No.54 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that on 17.02.2023, when the

¶20

respondent police made a search, wherein, they found that the accused were in illegal possession of 640 tablets of TYDOL 100 MG and 8 SYRINGES. Hence the case.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. She would submit that the contraband, alleged to have been seized from the petitioner, is not a schedule substances. She further submitted that the petitioner is in custody for more than 66 days, hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶22

2/6

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.8826 of 2023

¶24

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

¶25

respondent police opposed for granting bail to the petitioner stating that the petitioner along with other accused was found to be in illegal possession of 640 tablets of TYDOL 100 MG and 8 SYRINGES. He further submitted that the petitioner has no previous case against him. However, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶26

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶27

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

¶28

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶29

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

¶30

his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties (out of which, one should be the blood surety, who

¶31

3/6

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.8826 of 2023

¶33

should produce document to show his/her means) each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and on further conditions that:

¶34

[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;

¶35

[b] the petitioner shall report before respondent police everyday at 6.30 p.m., until further orders.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

[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

¶39

4/6

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.8826 of 2023

¶41

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];

¶42

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

24.04.2023

mpa

The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.

¶47

The Inspector of Police, PEW Adyar Police Station, Chennai.

¶48

The Central Prison, Puzhal.

¶49

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶50

5/6

¶51

Crl.O.P.No.8826 of 2023

¶52

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J.

¶53

mpa

¶54

Crl.O.P.No.8826 of 2023

¶55

24.04.2023

¶56

6/6

Karthick v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthick 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

Vignesh Vs State Rep.by

Sagar Mohanty Vs State Rep.by

P.Murugan Vs State Rep.by Its

Santhi Vs State Rep by

M.Prakash Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

A.Jayakumar Vs Inspector of Police