Mohammed Yasin v. The State Rep By,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
1. Mohammed Yasin S/o.Ahamed Hussain, No.20/46, Kasthuribai Nagar, West Tambaram, Tambaram, Chennai District.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Valasaravakkam Police Station, Chennai District. Crime No.417/2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.417 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent police and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
C.R.Gokulvisvas B.Periyannan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 278, 123 and 132 of BNS Act in Crime No.417 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he joined with other accused who is ranked as A3 went to Maharashtra and brought Tapentadol 1700 nos tablet 100 mg and after the contraband brought to Chennai. A3 while attempting to sell the same, he was arrested red handedly with the tablets.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working in a private company and he is not aware about the nature of contraband and he has been falsely implicated in this case and prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that there is no previous case against this petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner is also actively involved in this case and opposed to grant bail. He further submitted that the chemical analysis report is also awaited.
5. Considering the allegation that the Tapentadol tablet has been misused by these petitioners under the pretext of narcotics. Since no previous case is pending against the petitioner and the property also recovered, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial MagistrateI, Poonamallee, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition:
(a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, 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 identify proofs to ensure their identity;
(c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation; (d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];
(e) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
13-10-2025 Mpa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-I, poonamallee.
2.The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Valasaravakkam Police Station, Chennai District. Crime No.417/2025 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR J.
mpa CRL OP No. 26900 of 13-10-2025