Allowed

S.S.Roopesh v. State Rep. by

Madras HC10 Apr 2024CRL OP/5603/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Tamil Nadu granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner facing charges under the Immoral Traffic Act. Citing the arrest of co-accused as a significant change in circumstances, the court ordered the petitioner's release on bail subject to strict conditions, including surrendering within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail and surrender before Magistrate within 15 days.

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

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.5603 of 2024

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.5603 of 2024

¶3

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶4

The petitioner/A3 who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(2)(a), 5(1)(a) and 7(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 in Crime No.569 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶5

It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the spa called Drona Spa and also called Pearl View Medi.

¶6

3.Earlier petition seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed on

¶7

05.10.2023 in Crl.O.P.No.22779 of 2023. It is seen that A1 and A2 had

¶8

been arrested and had been granted bail. That is the significant change in circumstance.

¶9

4.Taking that fact into consideration, this Court is inclined to

¶10

grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and with certain conditions.

¶11

1/4

¶12

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

¶13

Crl.O.P.No.5603 of 2024

¶14

5.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on condition that the petitioner shall 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶15

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

¶16

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶17

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶18

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

¶19

2/4

¶20

Crl.O.P.No.5603 of 2024

¶21

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

¶22

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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].

¶23

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

10.04.2024

smv

3/4

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

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.5603 of 2024

¶29

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶30

smv

¶31

Crl.O.P.No.5603 of 2024

¶32

10.04.2024

¶33

4/4

¶34

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

S.S.Roopesh v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.S.Roopesh 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

B.S.Arunkumar Vs Mrs.Vidhya Venkatesh

Dr.Udhayan Felix Vs S.Sivaraj and another

R.Ravinder and 2 others Vs R.Prabhakar and 3 others

Prasanth Vs State Rep by

Varshni Vs Srikanth @ Pedapolu Srikanth

P.Srikanth @ Pedapolu Srikanth Vs Inspector of Police