Allowed

Mittaram alias Meetaram v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC3 Apr 2025CRL OP(MD)/6159/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners A1 and A3 were arrested for joint possession of banned tobacco products under Sections 123 and 318(4) BNS read with Section 20(1) COTPA. The court granted bail, citing their first-offender status and period in custody, subject to conditions including bonds, sureties and daily reporting.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioners subject to conditions: bond Rs.10,000 with two sureties each, daily police reporting, no tampering or similar offences.

Mittaram alias Meetaram Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CRL OP (MD) No.6159 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03/04/2025

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL

¶6

CRL OP (MD) No.6159 of 2025

¶7

1.Mittaram @ Meetaram 2.Ajaysingh ... Petitioners /A1 & A3 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Pudukkottai Town Police Station, Pudukkottai District. Crime No.84 of 2025 ... Respondent/Complainant

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Rameshkumar Advocate For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor

¶9

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS

¶10

PRAYER :-

¶11

For Bail in Crime No.84 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

CRL OP (MD) No.6159 of 2025

¶15

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 01.04.2025 under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying to grant bail.

¶17

The petitioners/A1 and A3 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.03.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 123 & 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 r/w. Section 20(1) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, in Crime No.84 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that, based on secret information, on 25.03.2025, at about 13:30 hours, when the respondent-police were on surveillance near the bank of Kumuthankulam, the petitioners herein and other accused persons were standing with two four-wheelers bearing Registration Nos. TN-10-BE-9799 and TN-81-H-7101. On seeing the respondent-police, they attempted to escape. However, the respondentpolice apprehended them. Upon enquiry, the respondent-police found that the accused persons were in joint possession of banned tobacco products, namely 20 packets of Hans (each containing 300 grams), 47 packets of Coolip (each containing 113.4 grams), and 14 packets of Vimal (each containing 10.5 grams) in their cars.

¶19

2/6

¶20

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

¶21

CRL OP (MD) No.6159 of 2025

¶22

Hence, the complaint.

¶23

Mr.D.Rameshkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocent persons, that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution, and that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He therefore prays to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶24

Per contra, Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-police, submits that there are no previous cases pending against the petitioners. He further submits that investigation of the case is still pending, and therefore, at this stage, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may abscond, cause delay in the investigation proceedings and also commit similar type of offence. Accordingly, he strongly opposes to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶25

Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records.

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the

¶27

facts that the petitioners are first offenders and that the petitioner have been in judicial custody since 25.03.2025 and with a view to give an opportunity to the petitioners to reform themselves, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners,

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

CRL OP (MD) No.6159 of 2025

¶31

however, subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, bail is granted to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

¶32

(i) The petitioners shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each along with two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai;

¶33

(ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the Application for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai shall obtain a copy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity;

¶34

(iii) The petitioners shall furnish their residential address and mobile numbers to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai;

¶35

(iv) The petitioners shall appear and sign before the respondent - police daily at 10.00 am until further orders;

¶36

(v) The petitioners shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond to be executed under Chapter XXXV of BNS, 2023;

¶37

(vi) The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected;

¶38

(vii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat

¶39

4/6

¶40

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

¶41

CRL OP (MD) No.6159 of 2025

¶42

or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them

¶43

from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the

¶44

evidence; and

¶45

(viii) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions are imposed by him as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283].

¶46