Allowed

Dhanush v. State Rep.by

Madras HC19 Sept 2024CRL OP/22578/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail petition for alleged possession of 5 kg ganja. Court held the quantity non-commercial, prior case dissimilar with bail granted and detention revoked, considered period of incarceration, and granted bail with conditions including daily reporting.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including daily reporting to the trial court.

Dhanush Vs State Rep.by — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.22578 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.22578 of 2024

¶7

Dhanush

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State represented by The Inspector of Police, PEW Ambattur Police Station Chennai. Cr.No. 318 of 2024

¶11

...Respondent/Complainant

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in C.C.No. 461 of 2024 on the file of II Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Chennai. ***

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. O.Chembulingam

¶14

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

¶15

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.22578 of 2024

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.05.2024 for the offences under Sections 8(c), read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, in Crime No.318 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in possession of 5.000 kgs of Ganja. Hence, the case.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

¶21

an innocent person, he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution, and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he is a law-abiding citizen and he is ready to furnish substantial sureties for his due release on bail; therefore, he prays for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶22

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.05.2024 for the illegal possession of

¶23

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.22578 of 2024

¶25

Ganja for sale and hence he objected to grant bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is having one previous case and he was released on bail in that case and the order of detention was revoked.

¶26

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

Considering the rival submissions on either side and considering

¶28

the nature of offences and quantity of materials involved in this case are not in commercial quantity, that the petitioner is having one previous case, but in that case is not of similar kind of offences and in that case, the petitioner was released on bail and also considering the period of incarceration underwent by the petitioner and thereafter the order of detention was revoked, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

¶29

[a]. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on 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 court of II Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act, Chennai and on further

¶30

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.22578 of 2024

¶32

conditions that:

¶33

[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned II Additional

¶34

Special Judge for NDPS Act, Chennai, on all working days at 10.30

¶35

a.m. until further orders;

¶36

[c] The petitioner shall attend in accordance with the conditions of

¶37

the bond;

¶38

[d] 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;

¶39

[e] The petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or

¶40

trial;

¶41

[f] 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 or tamper with evidence;

¶42

[g] on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the

¶43

4/6

¶44

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

¶45

Crl.O.P.No.22578 of 2024

¶46

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

¶47

[h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be

¶48

registered under Section 269 of the BNS.

19.09.2024

vsg

II Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act, Chennai.

¶53

2.Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶54

3.The Inspector of Police, PEW Ambattur Police Station Chennai.

¶55

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶56

P.DHANABAL, J .

¶57

vsg

¶58

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

Crl.O.P.No.22578 of 2024

¶60

Crl.O.P.No.22578 of 2024

¶61

19.09.2024

¶62

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Dhanush v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanush 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

E.Seloth Raj Vs Inspector of Police

M/S.Thiru Thanigai Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.H.M.Textiles (P) Ltd.

S.Eswaran @ Eswaramoorthy Vs State Rep by

Vignesh Vs State Rep by

Praveena Vs State Rep by

Deepan Vs the State Represented by