Mukesh @ Palli Mugesh v. State Rep By, Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.No.11070 of 2025 Mukesh @ Palli Mugesh ... Petitioner/Accused-2 Vs.
The State represented byThe Inspector of Police, N-2 Kasimedu Police Station.
Chennai.
(Crime No.116 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.116 of 2025, pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr. C.M. Ramakrishnan For Respondent : Ms. J.R. Archana 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 16.02.2025, seeking bail in Crime 1/5
No.116 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 8(c),20(b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) of NDPS Act, Section 132 of B.N.S. and Section 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act 1959.
2. The case of the prosecution is that based on secret information, the accused 1 to 3 were found in possession of 3.600 kgs of Ganja; and that 1.200 kgs of Ganja was seized from the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are false; that contraband has been seized; and that in any case, further custody of the petitioner is not required and prayed that the petitioner may be released on bail.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions, submitted that seized contraband in this case is intermediate quantity; and that the petitioner has 4 previous cases registered for the offences under IPC, in which, he is on bail.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts, nature of allegations, period of 2/5
incarceration, the fact that the petitioner is on bail in the other cases and the seized contraband in this case is an intermediate quantity, this Court is of the view that further custody of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
6. 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. [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, daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 2 weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interroagation; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during 3/5
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.
15.04.2025 [ [2/3] mjs To
1. The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, N-2 Kasimedu Police Station, Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 4/5
SUNDER MOHAN., J.
mjs 15.04.2025 [2/3] 5/5