Allowed

Murugan v. State Rep by

Madras HC11 May 2023CRL OP/9159/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to the petitioner arrested for illegal transport of Pondy arrack under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Court imposed conditions including daily reporting, bond execution, and appearance before Magistrate, referencing P.K. Shaji case.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties subject to daily reporting and other conditions.

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

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.9159 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.05.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.9159 of 2023

Murugan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, PEW Nannilam Police Station, Thiruvarur District.

¶11

(Crime No.233 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 Crime No.233 of 2023, pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthamizhselvakumar For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody

¶17

on 30.03.2023, for the offence punishable under Sections 4(1) (aaa) r/w 4(1-

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/5

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.9159 of 2023

¶20

A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, in connection with Crime No.233 of 2023, registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that when the respondent and his

¶22

team were on their regular patrol duty, they found that the accused was illegally transporting 110 litres of Pondy arrack. Hence the case.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence and he is in custody from 30.03.2023. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶24

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

¶25

respondent police submitted that the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of 110 litres of Pondy arrack. He further submitted that there are six previous cases pending against the petitioner. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5

¶27

2/5

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.9159 of 2023

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

¶30

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

¶31

Accordingly, 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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam, and on further conditions that:

¶32

[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;

¶33

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

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5

¶35

3/5

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.9159 of 2023

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

[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];

¶40

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

11.05.2023

vkr

The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam.

¶45

The Inspector of Police, PEW Nannilam Police Station, Thiruvarur District.

¶46

The Sub Prison, Nannilam.

¶47

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶48

4/5

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/5

¶50

Crl.O.P.No.9159 of 2023

¶51

SUNDER MOHAN, J

¶52

vkr

¶53

Crl.O.P.No.9159 of 2023

¶54

11.05.2023

¶55

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

Murugan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan 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

T.T.Mani Vs K.Vijayalakshmi

Suganthram Vs the State Rep by

Elumalai Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Pappaiya @ Jayasakthivel Vs the State Rep by

Anbanandhan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sudha Vs Inspector of Police