Ramu @ Ramachandran v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17-03-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Ramu @ Ramachandran S/o. Ramalingam, Gidangal, Tindivanam.
Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police, Tindivanam Police Station, Villupuram District. Crime No. 52 of 2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER To grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner herein, in the event of his arrest. in Crime No. 52 of 2025,on the file of the Respondent, pending investigation. For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Rajan A N For Respondent(s):
Mr. S. Santhosh, Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner/A3, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(C), 4(1)A, 14(A) of T.N.P. Amendment Act, 4(1)(a), 4(1)(i), 14(A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, in Crime No. 52 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner was found in possession of 55 brandy bottles without any vaild license.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are false; that based on the confession of the co-accused/A1, he has been arrayed and that in any case, custodial interrogation is not required and sought for anticipatory bail for the petitioner.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner,
reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions submitted that the petitioner has three previous cases of similar in nature. He further submitted that based on the confession of the co-accused, the petitioner has been implicated. He further submitted that the contraband was seized from co-accused /A1.
5. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, the fact that the contraband was seized, the fact that the petitioner is on bail in the other cases and since, custodial interrogation is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
6. 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 Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam, on condition that the petitioner shall execute 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:
[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. [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.
[c]the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[d]the petitioner shall not abscond 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.
17-03-2025 AT Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police, Tindivanam Police Station, Villupuram District. Crime No. 52 of 2025
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
AT CRL OP No. 7627 of 17-03-2025