Ranjith @ Ranjithkumar v. The State Rep By Its,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Ranjithkumar @ Ranjith
...Petitioner
Vs.
State rep by The Inspector of Police, S-8, Adambakkam Police Station, Chennai District.
Crime No.358 of 2022 ..Respondent PRAYER:
Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.358 of 2022 pending on the file of the respondent.
For Petitioner :Mr.S.N.Arunkumar For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.08.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) 1/5
read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act in Crime No.358 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.08.2022 at about 8.30 hours, Tr.S.Murugaraj, Sub Inspector of Police received a secret information about the illegal sale of ganja at Adambakkam MRTS Road, nearby Puzhudhivakkam Railway Station. Based on that information, the Sub-Inspector of Police and his team went to the scene of occurrence. At that time, one male accused was found standing with a black colour polythein bag. On seeing the police, he tried to escape from the scene of occurrence but immediately the police parties caught hold of him. Upon enquiry, the accused person was found in possession of 1.200 Kg of Ganja. Immediately, he was arrested and the contraband was seized. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, prays for grant of bail to the petitioner. 2/5
4. The respondent has filed a detailed counter.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of 1.200 Kg of Ganja. He would further submit that there is one previous case of similar nature pending as against the petitioner. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. Heard the learned counsel. Perused the counter filed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate Court No-II, Alandur, and on further conditions that :- 3/5
[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. and 5.30 p.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 229A IPC.
30.09.2022 mpl 4/5
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
mpl To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No-II, Alandur.
2.The Inspector of Police, S-8, Adambakkam Police Station, Chennai District.
3.Central Prison, Puzhal.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras Crl.O.P.No.22222 of 2022 30.09.2022 5/5