Allowed

Arumugam v. State Rep by

Madras HC29 Aug 2024CRL OP/20746/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 483 BNS, the High Court at Madras granted bail to a petitioner accused of illegal possession of illicit arrack under the TNP Act. The court considered the quantum of offence, period of incarceration, and the petitioner's prior convictions, releasing him on a bail bond with specific reporting and conduct conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail by executing a bond for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties for Rs. 10,000 each, subject to specific conditions including daily police reporting.

Arumugam Vs State Rep by — Money Laundering | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.20746 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.O.P.No.20746 of 2024

Arumugam

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, P. E.Wing Kottakuppam Police Station, Villupuram. (Crime No. 989 of 2024).

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S.,

¶13

pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in Crime No. 989 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.

¶14

For Petitioner : M/s.E.Brinda

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinothkumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody

¶18

on 29.06.2024, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 4(1) (a),

¶19

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

¶20

1/5

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.20746 of 2024

¶22

and 4(1-A) of TNP Act in Crime No.989 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 5 litres of illicit arrack. Hence the case.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case, since he has got some previous cases. He has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He would further submit that the petitioner was arrested and is in judicial custody for more than 60 days and is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

¶25

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 5 litres of illicit arrack. He further submitted that the petitioner has 6 previous cases, similar in nature, pending against him. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶26

2/5

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.20746 of 2024

¶29

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.

¶30

Considering the nature of offence and the quantity involved and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, and also considering the fact that the petitioner has 6 previous cases, in all the cases, he has been released on bail and also considering all others factors, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

¶31

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

¶32

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 District Munsif

¶33

cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur, and on further conditions that:-

¶34

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

¶35

[b] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

¶36

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

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.20746 of 2024

¶38

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

¶40

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].

¶41

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

29.08.2024

drl

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur.

¶46

2.The Inspector of Police,

¶47

P. E.Wing Kottakuppam Police Station, Villupuram.

¶48

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore District.

¶49

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶50

P.DHANABAL, J .

¶51

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

¶52

4/5

¶53

Crl.O.P.No.20746 of 2024

¶54

drl

¶55

Crl.O.P.No.20746 of 2024

¶56

29.08.2024

¶57

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

Arumugam v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugam 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

Shanmugam Vs State Rep by

Praveen Aditiya Vs State Rep by

Banumathi Vs State Rep by

C.Ravi Vs State Rep by

Aravindhan Vs the State Rep by

Subramani Vs State Rep by