Jayaram v. State
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, 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 ( one must be a blood surety), each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 23.04.2024CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVICrl.O.P.No.7763 of 2024 Jayaram... PetitionerVs.State Rep by. The Inspector of PoliceH-6, R.K. Nagar Police Station, Chennai. Crime No. 218 of 2024... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in respect of crime No. 218 of 2024 on the file of the The Inspector of Police,H-6, R.K. Nagar Police Station, where investigation pending. For Petitioner : Mr.C.RajaFor Respondent : Mr.V.Meganathan, B.A., B.L., Government Advocate (Crl. Side)1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O R D E R The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 16.03.2024 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections Section 328 of IPC, 1860 and under Section 24(1) of (COTPA) Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 Act and Section 77 of the Juvenile JJ Act (Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act 2015 and Sections 7 r/w 9(2) of TNPSS Act in crime No. 218 of 2024 on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.
The case of the prosecution is that the respondent police found the accused persons with the possession of 4.5 kgs of banned Tobacco Products. Hence, the case.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. On the other side, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submits that respondent police found the accused persons with the possession of 4.5 kgs of banned Tobacco Products. Further, he stated that there is no previous cases pending against the petitioner.2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and also there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, 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 ( one must be a blood surety), each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai 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 daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two months. Further, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand Only) to 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the credit of Tamil Nadu Advocate Clerk Welfare Association, Chennai, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;[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.23.04.2024pblT.V.THAMILSELVI,J.4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis pblTo1. The XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.2. The Inspector of PoliceH-6, R.K. Nagar Police Station, Chennai.3. The Central Prison, Puzhal II. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Crl.O.P.No.7763 of 202423.04.20245/5
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.