Allowed

Aravindhan v. the State Rep by

Madras HC29 Aug 2024CRL OP/20120/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused held for possession of 2.200 kgs of ganja sought bail under Section 483 BNSS. The court found the seized quantity non-commercial and granted bail with a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, daily reporting to the NDPS Court, and conditions against reoffending, absconding, or tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, daily reporting to NDPS Court Chennai until further orders, and standard conditions.

Aravindhan Vs the State Rep by — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL O.P. No.20120 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 29.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

CRL OP.No.20120 of 2024

¶7

Aravindhan

¶8

... Petitioner / Accused

¶9

¶10

State rep. by:-

¶11

The Inspector of Police, E-2, Royapettah Police Station, Chennai.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

[Cr. No.115 of 2024]

¶14

PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of

¶15

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in Crime No. 115 of 2024 on the respondent police.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.U.Yuvaraj

¶17

For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate [Criminal side]

¶18

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

¶19

1/6

¶20

CRL O.P. No.20120 of 2024

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.07.2024 for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.115 of 2024, on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

¶23

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 15.07.2024 at about 16.00 hours, based on a secret information, the respondent police went to R.K.Salai and Natesan Road junction and found the petitioner in possession of 2.200 kgs of Ganja. Hence, the case.

¶24

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is ready to abide by any stringent condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶25

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

¶26

2/6

¶27

CRL O.P. No.20120 of 2024

¶28

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent

¶29

would submit that petitioner was found in possession of 2.200 kgs of Ganja. He would further submit that there are 11 previous cases against the petitioner including two NDPS cases. He would further submit that investigation has been almost completed. However, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶30

5.In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner has 11 previous cases, he has been acquitted in four cases and he is facing trial in seven cases.

¶31

Heard both side learned counsel and perused the materials available on record.

¶32

Considering the representation made by both side learned counsel and considering that the contraband seized is not a commercial quantity and that though the petitioner has previous cases, he was granted bail and in some of the cases he was acquitted and considering the number of days of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following

¶33

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

¶34

3/6

¶35

CRL O.P. No.20120 of 2024

¶36

conditions:

¶37

[a] Accordingly, the Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on

¶38

condition to execute 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 XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and on further conditions that:

¶39

[b] the Petitioner shall report before the NDPS Court,

¶40

Chennai, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶41

[c] the Petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

¶42

[d] the Petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or

¶43

trial.

¶44

[e] the Petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶45

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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].

¶46

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

¶47

29.08.2024

¶48

ata

¶49

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

¶50

4/6

¶51

CRL O.P. No.20120 of 2024

¶52

¶53

1.The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶54

2.The Inspector of Police, E-2, Royapettah Police Station, Chennai.

¶55

3.Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶56

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶57

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

¶58

5/6

¶59

CRL O.P. No.20120 of 2024

¶60

P.DHANABAL, J ata

¶61

CRL.OP.No.20120 of 2024

¶62

29.08.2024

¶63

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

¶64

6/6

Aravindhan v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aravindhan v. the 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

Shanmugam Vs State Rep by

Praveen Aditiya Vs State Rep by

Banumathi Vs State Rep by

C.Ravi Vs State Rep by

Arumugam Vs State Rep by

Subramani Vs State Rep by