Allowed

Gowtham v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC25 Apr 2023CRL OP(MD)/7725/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted bail to two petitioners accused of offences under the NDPS Act. Implicated primarily through the confession of a single accused found in possession of contraband, the Court found a prima facie case and released the petitioners subject to strict conditions including reporting, execution of bond, and no tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on ₹10,000 bond with two sureties, subject to strict reporting and behavioral conditions.

Gowtham Vs The Inspector of Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25.04.2023

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD). Nos.7725 and 7728 of 2023

¶6

Gowtham ... Petitioner/A5 in Crl.O.P(MD).No.7725 of 2023 Thinakaran @ Deena ... Petitioner/A4 in Crl.O.P(MD).No.7728 of 2023

¶7

Vs.,

¶8

The State through The Inspector of Police, Silaiman Police Station, Madurai District. (In Crime No.377 of 2022) ... Respondent/Complainant in both cases

¶9

In both cases

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Prithviraj For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthilkumar,

¶11

Additional Public Prosecutor PETITIONS FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

¶12

COMMON PRAYER :-

¶13

For Bail in Crime No.377/2022 on the file of the respondent police.

¶14

COMMON ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioners/A5 & A4, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 16.11.2022 and 14.11.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of NDPS Act in Crime No.377 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

¶16

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 24.10.2022 at about 6.30 am., based on the secret information, the Sub-Inspector of Police went to patrol duty along with other police officials near Waste Water Recycling Treatment Area and they found four persons in two wheeler and on seeing the police, the persons tried to escape and the respondent caught hold A1 with a gunny bag and they seized 22.5kgs of contraband. A1 has given confession statement that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis accused persons have purchased a contraband from the petitioners. Hence, the case.

¶17

¶18

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners are arrayed as A5 and A4. They have been implicated as accused only based upon the confession statement given by A1. The prosecution failed to produce any material to connect the petitioners along with A1. Though the petitioners involved in other IPC cases, they never involved in NDPS cases so far. A4 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.11.2022 and A5 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 16.11.2022.

¶19

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that all the accused persons A1 to A5 were in possession of contraband weighing 22.5kgs. However, on seeing the police personnel, except A1, other accused persons fled away. Therefore, on the confession of A1, the petitioners have been implicated as accused. He further submitted that in so far as A4 is concerned, he has five previous cases and A5 is concerned, he has eight previous cases.

¶20

In view of the above, it revealed that the petitioners are implicated only based on the confession statement recorded by A1. A1 was alone found in possession of contraband weighing 22.5kgs. There is no material produced by the prosecution in order to connect the petitioners with A1. Therefore, the petitioners have made out a prima facie case in order to satisfy the twin conditions as contemplated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. That apart, they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.11.2022 and 16.11.2022. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

¶21

[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two blood related sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, and on further conditions that:

¶22

[b] the petitioners and 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.

¶23

[c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and therafter, as and when required.

¶24

[d] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

¶25

[e] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶26

[f] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶27

[g] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶28

¶29

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

sd/-

25/04/2023

/ TRUE COPY /

25/04/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶34

Rmk

¶35

¶36

1	THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, MADURAI.
2	DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.
3	THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SILAIMAN POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.
4	THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI.
5	THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
	ORDER IN CRL OP(MD). Nos.7725 and 7728 of 2023 Date :25/04/2023
SS/	VR/SAR /25/04/2023/3P/6C

¶37

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

Gowtham v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gowtham v. The 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

Yasathai @ Yasatha Vs The Inspector of Police

Ravi Vs The Inspector of Police

Vinoth @ Vinothpandian Vs The Inspector of Police

Sundarrajan Vs The Inspector of Police

P.L.Ammaiyappan Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Dhanapandi Vs The Inspector of Police