Senthil Alias Kanagalingam v. State Rep., By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 17.12.2024
CORAM
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.DHANABAL CRL OP.No.31439 of 2024 Senthil @ Kanagalingam ... Petitioner / Accused Vs State rep. by:- The Inspector of Police, T-10 Thirumullaivoyal Police Station, Chennai.
... Respondent [Cr. No.473 of 2024] PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., praying to grant bail to the petitioner/Accused in Cr. No.473 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr. M. Vimal B. Crimson For Respondent : Mr. S. Balaji, Government Advocate (Criminal side)
ORDER
The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in this case under P.T. warrant on 19.08.2024 for the 1/7
offence punishable under Section 24(1) of COTP Act and Sections 274, 275 and 123 of B.N.S. in Cr. No.304 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.08.2024, based on the secret information about the illegal sale of contraband, the police team went to the scene of occurrence at Kaveri Street, Iyappakkam and conducted vehicle check up and the found the accused A1 to A3 with illegal possession of 137.100 kgs of Hans (Tobacco product) and further seized 35.300 kgs of cool lip, 24.600 kgs of Hans, Vimal Pan masala - 59.300 kgs and 17.850 kgs of Swagath gold. Hence the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondent police have registered a false case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 24(1) of COTP Act and Sections 274, 275 and 123 of B.N.S. In fact, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in an another case in Cr. No.665 of 2024 on 14.09.2024. Based on the confession statement of the co-accused, he 2/7
was falsely implicated as an accused in this case. He is an innocent and nothing to do with the alleged offences. He is in judicial custody from 19.08.2024. Therefore prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that the accused A1 and A2 were arrested by the respondent police for the illegal possession of banned products, which are commercial quantity and further, during the investigation, this petitioner/A3 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody under P.T. warrant. Samples were sent for the lab analysis and the report is yet to be received. There are 5 previous cases pending against the petitioner. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side, considering the nature of offences, considering the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 19.08.2024, moreover, the petitioner was implicated in this case based on the confession statement of the co3/7
accused, no any contraband was recovered from this petitioner and considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner from 19.08.2024, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:
[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the Nazerathpet Police Station daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;
[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he is suspected;
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or 4/7
trial;
[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
17.12.2024 [2/2] index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No 5/7
Speaking/Non Speaking order mjs To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur 2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police, T-16 Nazerathpet Police Station, Chennai.
4. The Inspector of Police, T-10 Thirumullaivoyal Police Station, Chennai.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai. P.DHANABAL ,J mjs 6/7
17.12.2024 [2/2] 7/7