Thiyagarajan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 08/05/2024 PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE Thiyagarajan ... Petitioner/Accused No.5 Vs The State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, PEW Police Station, Sivagangai.

(Cr.No.212/2024.) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.Thirumal.V, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No. 212/2024 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested on 30.03.2024, in connection with a case 1/6

in Crime No.212 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1) (aa), 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and 468, 471, 420 of IPC and 5,6,8 of Tamil Nadu Rectified Spirit Rules has filed this petition seeking bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.03.2024 at about 2.30 pm, when the respondent police intercepted a Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 45 AJ 6397, the accused persons were found in possession of 220 bottles of Express Brandy and 30 bottles of Black Pearl liquors. Totally, 5550 bottles of liquor worth about 12 lakhs have been recovered from the accused persons. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. However, he is languishing in jail from 30.03.2024. He further submits that the petitioner has leased out his land to one Ramasamy, who is the husband of the A4 and he is not aware of the illicit manufacturing of liquors by the other accused in his land. Since the petitioner is the owner of the land, he has been wrongly implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police strongly opposes for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits 2/6

that the accused persons engaged in manufacturing of liquors illegally in the petitioner's land and knowing that the petitioner has leased out his land to the accused persons.

5. Heard both sides.

6. This Court, while granting bail in this matter, has taken into consideration (a) gravity of the crime, (b) character of the evidence, (c) position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, (d) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, (e) possibility of the accused (petitioner) tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice.

7. It is also settled law that at the time of consideration of bail application, it is neither necessary nor desirable to weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether or not the accused (petitioner) has committed the alleged offences. What is to be seen is whether there is a reasonable ground for believing that accused (petitioner) is not guilty of the offences he is charged with.

8. The Court has to strike a balance between the rights of the accused 3/6

(petitioner) to his liberty and the interest of the society. Liberty of an accused (petitioner) cannot be snatched unreasonably for an uncertain time only on the basis of mere allegations.

9. After taking into consideration the aforementioned factors, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to fulfilment of the following conditions by him.

i. The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari. ii. The petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

iii. The petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders for interrogation. iv. The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

v. The petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; 4/6

vi. 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]; and ;

vii.If the accused/petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

10.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands ordered. sd/- 08/05/2024 / TRUE COPY / 08/05/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

vrn 5/6

TO 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari.

2. -do-Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai. 3.The Superintendent, District Prison, Ramnad. 4.The Inspector of Police, PEW Police Station, Sivagangai.

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.V.THIRUMAL, Advocate ( SR-5292[I] dated 08/05/2024 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.6819 of 2024 Date :08/05/2024 RD(08/05/2024) 6P / 7C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17.07.2023. 6/6