Praveen v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Praveen Pavithra ... Petitioners Vs.

State rep by Inspector of Police, P-2, Otteri Police Station, Chennai.

(Cr.No.511 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Cr.No.511 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, P-2, Otteri Police Station, Chennai.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Mohan Raj For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

1/6

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) 25 NDPS Act & 4(1)(a) r/w 4(1-A) of TNP Act registered in Cr.No.511 of 2025 on the file of the respondent, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners were found in possession of the 1100 grams of ganja and 24 bottles of Tasmac liquor. Hence, the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners are ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that A1 was found in possession of 1.100 kgs of ganja and various types of brandy bottles and A2 was found in possession of 24 bottles of Tasmac liquor and sold the same to 2/6

the local public. They have been arrested. Based on the confession of the arrested co-accused that these petitioners have been impleaded as A3 and A4. He further submitted that they are relatives and they were helped A1 and A2. Hence, he opposed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either sides and taking note of the nature of allegations and since, custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore Court, Chennai-600 008 on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute separate bonds 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 3/6

of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] if the petitioners fails to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled;

[b] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required;

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial and they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [e] the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[f] the petitioners to give an undertaking that if required 4/6

for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; [g] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court themselves as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]; [h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

30.07.2025 Vv To

1. The X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore Court, Chennai

2. The Inspector of Police, P-2, Otteri Police Station, Chennai..

3.The Public Prosecutor,High Court of Madras. 5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.16495 of 2025 30.07.2025 6/6