Allowed

Chandiran @ Chandrasekar v. State Rep by

Madras HC22 Sept 2023CRL OP/9283/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case of illegal possession of illicit arrack. The applicant was directed to deposit Rs.15,000 as a non-refundable contribution to a welfare scheme and to execute a bond with a monetary penalty for absconding.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on deposit of Rs.15,000 to KMC Hospital Maintenance Fund, execution of a bond with two sureties, and strict conditions including daily reporting.

Chandiran @ Chandrasekar Vs State Rep by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.9283 of 2023

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.9283 of 2023

¶3

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN , J.

¶4

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A)(ii) of TNP Act r/w 6 and 7 of TN R S Rules 2000, in Crime No.208 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶5

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 35 liters contained in R.S.Cane. Hence the case.

¶6

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the alleged offence. He would further submit that without prejudice, the petitioner is prepared to deposit an amount of Rs.15,000/- as nonrefundable deposit to any welfare scheme of the Government and he is prepared to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶7

Page 1 of 6

¶8

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

¶9

Crl.O.P.No.9283 of 2023

¶10

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that petitioner was found in illegal possession of 35 liters contained in R.S.Cane. He would further submit that there is no previous pending against the petitioner. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶11

5.Heard the learned counsel and perused the entire materials available on record including the First Information Report.

¶12

6.In order to curb the illegal activities of transporting illicit arrack, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as non refundable deposit

¶13

by way of Demand Draft/RTGS/NEFT to KMC Hospital, Hospital Maintenance Fund, Madras 600010, A/C.No.1650101005396, IFSC

¶14

Code No.CNRB0001650 ., without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court.

¶15

7.Merely, because the petitioner deposits 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.

¶16

Page 2 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.9283 of 2023

¶19

8.Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner has prepared to deposit Rs.15,000/- to any welfare scheme of the Government, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶20

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) by way of Demand Draft/RTGS/NEFT to KMC Hospital, Hospital Maintenance Fund, Madras 600010, A/C.No.1650101005396, IFSC Code No.CNRB0001650 . , 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 in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Polur, Tiruvannamalai District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two

¶21

Page 3 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.9283 of 2023

¶24

sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or

¶25

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:

¶26

[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.

¶27

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶28

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

¶29

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation

¶30

or trial;

¶31

[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];

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.9283 of 2023

¶35

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be

¶36

registered under Section 229A IPC;

22.09.2023

nvi

Page 5 of 6

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

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.9283 of 2023

¶42

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

¶43

nvi

¶44

Crl.O.P.No.9283 of 2022

¶45

22.09.2023

¶46

Page 6 of 6

¶47

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

Chandiran @ Chandrasekar v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandiran @ Chandrasekar 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

Pushpa Vs Inspector of Police

Karthick Kumar Vs State Rep by

Subramanian Vs the Inspector of Police

Kavidoss Vs State by

P.Aalen Prashanth Vs the State Represented by

Lelin Kumar @ Parthiban Vs Inspector of Police