Purushothaman @ Vicky v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.11.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Purushothaman @ Vicky ... Petitioner Vs.

The State rep by its The Inspector of Police, G1-Maduranthakam Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

(Crime No.541 of 2022) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.541 of 2022 on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Barathkumar For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap, Government Advocate (crl.side), 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.10.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.541 of 2022 on the file of respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the other accused was found to be in illegal possession of 1.250 Kgs of Ganja. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. He would submit that the petitioner is aged about 19 years and that he is in custody for the past 54 days. He would further submit that the alleged contraband recovered from the petitioner is only an intermediate quantity and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner. 2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner along with the other accused was found to be in possession of 1.250 Kgs of Ganja. He would further submit that the petitioner is an habitual offender and there are one previous case of similar nature pending against him. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.

6. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that the contraband recovered from the petitioner is an intermediate quantity, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. 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 3/6

thousand only) with two sureties, in which, one surety should be either father or mother of the petitioner, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Maduranthakam 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;

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [f] 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];

4/6

[g] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC. 29.11.2022 shk To

1. The learned Judicial Magistrate I, Maduranthakam 2.The Inspector of Police, G1-Maduranthakam Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

3. The Puzhal Jail, Chennai

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.

shk Crl.O.P.No.28628 of 2022 29.11.2022 6/6