Rahul @ Pallu Rahul v. The State Rep By, The Sub Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 31.01.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Rahul @ Pallu Rahul ... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, N2 Kasimedu Police Station Chennai. (Crime No.386 of 2024).

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in Crime No.386 of 2024, on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ezhilbalaji For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.12.2024, seeking bail in Crime No.386 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 8(c), 22(b) & 29(1) of NDPS Act 1985.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the first accused was found to be in illegal possession of 82.5 grams of Nitravet-10 mg tablets and during enquiry, the first accused admitted to purchasing the tablets from the present petitioner. 1/4

Hence the case.

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 10.12.2024 and he is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4.Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing for grant of bail to the petitioner, submitted that the first accused was found to be in illegal possession of 82.5 grams of Nitravet10 mg tablets and during enquiry, the first accused admitted to purchasing the tablets from the present petitioner. He further submitted that there are no previous cases against the petitioner.

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

6.Considering the fact that there is no recovery from the petitioner, period of incarceration and that there is no previous case against the petitioner, this Court finds that further custody of the petitioner is not necessary for investigation. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

2/4

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, and on further conditions that:

[a] 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; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[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];

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

31.01.2025 sai 3/4

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

sai To 1.The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai 2.The Inspector of Police, N2 Kasimedu Police Station Chennai.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

31.01.2025 4/4