Allowed

Murugan v. the State Rep by

Madras HC9 Sept 2024CRL OP/21701/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail petition by the third accused arrested for possessing 426 kgs of banned tobacco products under Section 123 BNS read with Section 22(a) COTPA. Considering the nature of offences, prior cases in which he was released on bail, and period of incarceration, the court granted bail on conditions including daily police reporting for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on executing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruppur, subject to conditions including daily reporting for 30 days.

Murugan Vs the State Rep by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL O.P. No.21701 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated :09.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

CRL OP.No.21701 of 2024

¶7

Murugan

¶8

... Petitioner / Accused - 3

¶9

¶10

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

¶11

(Crime No.1155 of 2024)

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS) 2023, praying to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in Crime No.1155 of 2024, on the file of the respondent.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kalimuthu

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

CRL O.P. No.21701 of 2024

¶20

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody

¶21

on 17.08.2024 for the offence punishable under Section 123 of BNS, 2023, r/w 22(a) of COTPA Act, 2003, in Crime No.1155 of 2024, on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

¶22

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 17.07.2024 at about 6.00

¶23

hours, when the respondent was on regular patrol, the petitioner along with the other accused were found in possession of 426 kgs of banned tobacco products worth about Rs.2,50,000/- in a TATA Ace vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN-42-AL-3695. 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 been in custody from 17.08.2024. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

2/6

¶28

CRL O.P. No.21701 of 2024

¶29

would submit that the petitioner along with the other accused were found in possession of 426 kgs of banned tobacco products worth about Rs.2,50,000/- in a vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN-42-AL-3695. He would further submit that there are three previous cases against the petitioner and the property has been recovered. However, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶30

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

¶31

Considering the nature of offences and the quantity of material involved in this case and that though the petitioner is having some previous cases, he was released on bail in all the cases and also taking into consideration the number of days of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶32

[a] Accordingly, the Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on 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 Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruppur, and on further conditions that;

¶33

[b] the Petitioner shall report before the respondent police

¶34

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

¶35

3/6

¶36

CRL O.P. No.21701 of 2024

¶37

everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 30 days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶38

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

¶39

[d] the Petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶40

[e] the Petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶41

[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]; and

¶42

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

¶43

09.09.2024

¶44

ata

¶45

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

¶46

4/6

¶47

CRL O.P. No.21701 of 2024

¶48

¶49

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruppur.

¶50

2.The Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

¶51

3.District Jail, Tiruppur.

¶52

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶53

P.DHANABAL, J.

¶54

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

¶55

5/6

¶56

CRL O.P. No.21701 of 2024

¶57

ata

¶58

CRL.OP.No.21701 of 2024

¶59

09.09.2024

¶60

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

¶61

6/6

Murugan v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan 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

Veronical Lalitha Vs The State Rep by

Sivaprakash Vs State Rep by

Ethiraj Vs the State Rep by Tis

Mohammed Ayub Vs the Inspector of Police,Vellore

G. Brindha, Vs State Rep by

Muthukumaran Sankarlal Vs State Rep. by