Vunglianching @ Rebacca v. The State Represented By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.02.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.No.4801 of 2025 Vunglianching @ Rebacca ... Petitioner/Accused Vs.

The State represented byThe Inspector of Police, J6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.17 of 2025).

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in connection with the Crime No.17 of 2025, pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr. R. Parthiban 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 20.01.2025, seeking bail in Crime No.34 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 8(c) and 22(b) of NDPS 1/5

Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on secret information, the accused was found in illegal possession of 30 nos. of Alprazolam tablets and 8100 nos. of Tapentadol without any valid license.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent; that she has not at all involved in any offence; that she has been falsely implicated in this case and she is in judicial custody for one month; that contraband was seized and hence prayed for grant of bail.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the contraband was seized and there is no previous case pending 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 nature of allegations, period of incarceration, the fact 2/5

that the quantity of Alprazolam tablets seized from the petitioner is intermediate quantity and the Tapentadol is not a scheduled subtance, there is no previous case pending against the petitioner and since further custody of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her 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 XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

[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, weekly twice i.e., on Monday and Thursday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

3/5

[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.

24.02.2025 mjs To

1. The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, J6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, Chennai.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal (Women), Chennai.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 4/5

SUNDER MOHAN., J.

mjs Crl.O.P.No.4801 of 2025 24.02.2025 5/5