Sarathkumar v. The State Rep By Its,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.12.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Sarathkumar ... Petitioner Vs.

State by:- The Inspector of Police, C.S.C.I.D Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

(Crime No.208 of 2022) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge bail to the petitioner pending investigation in Crime No.208 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Jayachandran 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 22.11.2022 for the offences punishable under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 read with Section 7(i) a (ii) of E.C. Act 1955, in Crime No.208 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on receipt of a secret information, when the respondent police conducted search in vehicles, they found that the petitioner had illegally transported 8,250 Kgs of PDS rice worth of Rs.46,613/-. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would also submit that without prejudice to his contentions, the petitioner is prepared to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- to any Welfare Scheme of the Government and he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner. 2/6

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner had illegally transported 8,250 Kgs of PDS rice worth of Rs.46,613/-. 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.

5. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the materials available on record.

6. In order to curb the illegal activities of transporting PDS rice, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as non refundable deposit to "the District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District," without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court. However, it is made clear that merely, because the petitioner deposits 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.

3/6

7. 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 has prepared to deposit Rs.50,000/- to any welfare scheme of the Government, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

8. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by way of Demand Draft/RTGS/NEFT to the "District Revenue Officer, Krishnagiri District", 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 each for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri, 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;

4/6

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

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond 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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

01.12.2022 mpl 5/6

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA., J.

mpl To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri.

2. The Inspector of Police, C.S.C.I.D Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

3. Sub Jail, Krishnagiri.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

01.12.2022 6/6