High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 04 MAD CK 0154

Kumaresan vs State

Madras High Court · Decided on 17 April 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Original Petition No. No.9375 Of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 667 words

T.V.Thamilselvi, J

1.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.04.2024 in Crime No.76 of 2024 registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(a) r/w 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, seeks bail.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that the petitioner is only the owner of the KVS dhaba, from where the liquor bottles were recovered and he is no way connected with the alleged offence and he is suffering incarceration from 01.04.2024. He further submitted that the petitioner, without prejudice his rights, on his own volition, is ready and willing to contribute some amount to any Government organisation as may be directed by this Court and also ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

3.

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police raised objection for granting bail to the petitioner stating that the petitioner/accused, who is the owner of KVS Dhaba, had purchased the liquor from the Government Tasmac shop and sell the same illegally in his dhaba for higher price and from his possession 19.520 litres of liquor were recovered. He further submitted that the investigation in this case has almost been completed and there is no previous case against the petitioner.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

5.

In order to curb the illegal activities of smuggling and selling of liquor, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the credit of the Government Rehabilitation Home, Paranur, Chengalpet, without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court. 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.

6.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the fact that the investigation in this case is almost completed and there is no previous case against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7.

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as non-refundable deposit to the credit of the Government Rehabilitation Home, Paranur, Chengalpet, Account No.10450100006433, Bank of Baroda, and on such deposit and production of proof, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties (out of which, one shall be the blood related surety), each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, 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;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three months and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

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

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness 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.