Vijayalakshmi @ Lakshmi v. The State Rep By

SUNDER MOHAN.

J., This matter is posted today before this Court under the caption 'For Being Mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on 12.03.2025, this Court had granted bail to petitioner herein in Crl.O.P.No.7046 of 2025. However, in the order, the offence is wrongly mentioned as 4(1)(c), 4(1)(ii) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024 instead of 4(1)(C) r/w 4(1-A)(ii) of TNP Amendment Act, 2024. Thus, he prayed for suitable directions.

3. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Registry is directed to issue order copy afresh forthwith, by correcting paragraph No.1 of the order as follows: "This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.03.2025, seeking bail in Crime No.84 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 4(1)(C) r/w 4(1-A)(ii) of TNP Amendment Act, 2024."

14.03.2025 Issue order copy by 17.03.2025.

Upload order copy forthwith ars

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.03.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Vijayalakshmi @ Lakshmi ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep. by its Inspector of Police Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station Tiruvannamalai District.

(Crime No.84 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.84 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.Sathiyaraj E.

For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Learned Government Advocate (Criminal 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 01.03.2025, seeking bail in Crime No.84 of 2025 registered for the offence under Section 4(1)(c), 4(1)(ii) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2024.

2.The case of the prosecution is that petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of 20 bottles of black pearl brandy.

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 01.03.2025 and she 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, reiterated the prosecution case. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that there are three previous cases against the petitioner, which are similar in nature.

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 undergone by the petitioner, the quantity of contraband seized in this case, the fact that the petitioner was released on bail in all the previous cases and since further custody is not required for the purpose of interrogation, 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 Judicial Magistrate I, Tiruvannamalai District, 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 of B.N.S.

12.03.2025 sai

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

sai To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District 2.The Inspector of Police Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station Tiruvannamalai District.

3.The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Vellore.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

12.03.2025