Kuppan v. State Rpe By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Kuppan ... Petitioner Vs.
The State represented by, The Sub Inspector of Police, Thanipadi Police Station.
(Crime No.353/2022).
... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with the Crime No.353 of 2022 pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/7
O R D E R
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.09.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1) (aa) r/w 4(1A)(ii), of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, in Crime No.353 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that when the respondent police and their team were on routine patrol duty, they found that the petitioner was in illegal possession of 55 litres of illicit arrack. 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. He would also state that the petitioner is in custody from 19.09.2022 and he is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He would also submit that without prejudice, the petitioner is prepared to make a deposit Rs.10,000 as non-refundable deposit to any welfare scheme of the Government and hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.
2/7
4. The Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 55 litres of illicit arrack. He would also submit that the petitioner is a habitual offender and there are 4 previous cases of similar nature pending against him. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.
6. In order to curb the illegal activities of transporting and selling of illicit arrack, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as a non refundable deposit to "The Dean/Medical Officer, Government Medical College Hospital, Tiruvannamalai", without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court.
3/7
7. Merely, because the petitioner has deposited the said amount, it would not amount to admission of his guilt. Therefore, it is open to the trial Court to deal with the case independently.
8. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner is prepared to deposit Rs.10,000/- to any welfare scheme of the Government, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
9. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to make a non refundable deposit of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) by way of Demand Draft/RTGS/NEFT to the "The Dean/Medical Officer, Government Medical College Hospital, Tiruvannamalai", without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court, on such deposit and production of proof, 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 4/7
to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thandarampet, 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. and 5.30p.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]; 5/7
[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
20.10.2022 ham To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Thandarampet.
2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Thanipadi Police Station.
3. The Sub Jail.
Tiruvannamalai.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
6/7
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J.
ham 20.10.2022 7/7