Allowed

Immanuel v. the State Rep by

Madras HC2 Sept 2024CRL OP/21428/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought bail in an NDPS ganja case after arrest on a co-accused's confession, with no recovery from him and no prior cases. Court granted regular bail on bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, daily police reporting until further orders, and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail on executing bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including daily reporting to respondent police from 06.09.2024 until further orders.

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

¶1

CRL O.P. No.21428 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 02.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.DHANABAL

¶6

CRL OP.No.21428 of 2024

¶7

Immanuel S/o. Harikrishnan ... Petitioner / Accused

¶8

¶9

State rep. by:-

¶10

The Sub-Inspector of Police, J8 Neelankarai Police Station, Neelankarai, Chennai-600 115. ... Respondent [Cr. No.274 of 2024]

¶11

PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of

¶12

Criminal Procedure Code, praying to grant bail to the petitioner/Accused

¶13

in Cr. No.274 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr. Satheesh.R

¶15

For Respondent : Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate

¶16

(Criminal side)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to

¶19

judicial custody on 28.07.2024 for the offences punishable under sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act in Cr. No.274 of 2024 on the

¶20

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

¶21

1/6

¶22

CRL O.P. No.21428 of 2024

¶23

file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that on 28.07.2024, based on a

¶25

secret information, the respondent police made a search near Akkarai KK Salai bus stop and at around 08.05 a.m., the respondent police found three persons in illegal possession of Ganja and seized totally 6 pouches of Ganja, each weighing 2.900 gms, from them and hence the case.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is no way connected to the commission of offence as alleged in the FIR, that the petitioner is not a named accused in the FIR, that he was arrested only for enquiry, that based on the confession statement given by the co-accused, this petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, that the petitioner is an innocent and therefore, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶27

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would contend that there are totally 5 accused in this case, that the accused were found in illegal possession of Ganja and 12 kgs of Ganja were recovered

¶28

2/6

¶29

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

¶30

CRL O.P. No.21428 of 2024

¶31

from the accused and hence he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that there is no previous case pending against this petitioner.

¶32

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶33

Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, considering the fact that the petitioner is not a named accused in the FIR, that there is no other previous cases, that the properties were recovered only from the co-accused and not from this petitioner, that based on the confession statement of co-accused, this petitioner has been arrayed as accused in this case and considering the period of incarceration underwent by the petitioner, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

¶34

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner uis 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 sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magist, Sholinganallur and on further conditions that:

¶35

3/6

¶36

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

¶37

CRL O.P. No.21428 of 2024

¶38

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police from 06.09.2024 onwards, daily at 10.00 A.M. until further orders.

¶39

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he is suspected;

¶40

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

¶41

trial;

¶42

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶43

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them rom disclosing such facts to the Court or

¶44

to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶45

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

¶46

Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action

¶47

4/6

¶48

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

¶49

CRL O.P. No.21428 of 2024

¶50

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].

¶51

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

¶52

02.09.2024

¶53

index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mjs P.DHANABAL, J mjs To

¶54

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magist, Sholinganallur

¶55

The Sub-Inspector of Police, J8 Neelankarai Police Station, Neelankarai, Chennai-600 115 .

¶56

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66.

¶57

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶58

5/6

¶59

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

¶60

CRL O.P. No.21428 of 2024

¶61

CRL.OP.No.21428 of 2024

¶62

02.09.2024

¶63

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

¶64

6/6

Immanuel v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Immanuel 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

Arjun @ Karthi Shanmugam Vs The State Rep by

Kirubakaran Vs State by

Kamalakannan Vs the State Rep by Its

Amulu Vs State Rep by

Sundaramoorthy Vs The State Rep. By

Boopathi Vs the State Rep.by