Allowed

Sumathi v. State by

Madras HC26 Sept 2024CRL OP/23708/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition for bail, the High Court of Madras granted bail to the petitioner charged with illegal possession of alcohol and banned tobacco products. The court considered the nature of the offence, quantity involved, and the petitioner's prior bail history.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of daily reporting and non-abdication.

Sumathi Vs State by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.23708 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 26.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.23708 of 2024

¶7

Sumathi ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State represented by, The Station House Officer, Rishivanthiyam Police Station, Kallakurichi District. (Crime No. 243 of 2024).

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

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

¶12

pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in Crime No. 243 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.

¶13

For Petitioner : M/s.Murali Law Firm

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody

¶17

on 01.09.2024, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 4(1)(A) of

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.O.P.No.23708 of 2024

¶20

TNP Act r/w 24(1) of COTPA Act, in Crime No. 243 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 14 beer bottles, 20 brandy bottles and banned tobacco products, worth about Rs.2,500/-. Hence the complaint.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case, since she has got some previous cases. She 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 25 days and is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

¶23

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 14 beer bottles, 20 brandy bottles and banned tobacco products, worth about Rs.2,500/-. without any valid license. He further

¶24

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

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.23708 of 2024

¶26

submitted that the petitioner has 2 previous cases, similar in nature, pending against her. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶27

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

¶28

Considering the nature of offence, quantity involved and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, and though the petitioner has 2 previous cases, in all the cases, she has been released on bail, and also considering all others factors, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

¶29

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her 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 Judicial Magistrate, Thirukovilur, and on further conditions that:-

¶30

[a] the petitioner shall report before the Kallakurichi Police Station, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 30 days.

¶31

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

¶32

3/6

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.23708 of 2024

¶34

[b] 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;

¶35

[c] 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;

¶36

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

¶37

trial;

¶38

[e] 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

¶39

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

¶40

26.09.2024

¶41

drl

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶43

4/6

¶44

Crl.O.P.No.23708 of 2024

¶45

¶46

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thirukovilur.

¶47

2.The Station House Officer, Rishivanthiyam Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

¶48

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.

¶49

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶50

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

¶51

Crl.O.P.No.23708 of 2024

¶52

P.DHANABAL, J .

¶53

drl

¶54

Crl.O.P.No.23708 of 2024

¶55

26.09.2024

¶56

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

Sumathi v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumathi v. State 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

Senthil Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Dhanasekaran Vs Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

Venkatesh Vs The State Represented by

E.Dhanasekaran Vs the Inspector of Police

K Reena Vs State Rep by

Steepan Devaraj Vs State Rep by