Sideeshvaran v. State
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis there is no bad antecedents against petitioner and also the contraband seized from the petitioner is intermediate quantity. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.5. Accordingly, the petitioner…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 11.07.2024CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVICrl.O.P.No.14540 of 2024 Sideeshvaran... PetitionerVs.State Rep by. The Inspector of PoliceC1, Flower Bazar Police Station, Chennai. Crime No. 47 of 2024... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge them on bail in crime No. 39 of 2024 pending on the file of the The Inspector of Police, C1, Flower Bazar Police Station, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kasirajanfor Mr.M.RamakrishnanFor 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 28.03.2024 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8 (c ) r/w 22(c), 25, 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985 in crime No. 47 of 2024 on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.
The case of the prosecution is that the respondent police found the accused persons along with possession of 0.095 grams of LSD stamp. Hence, the case.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and also the contraband seized from the petitioner is intermediate quantity. Hence, he prays to allow this petition.
On the other side, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submits that 0.095 grams of LSD stamp has been recovered from the accused persons. Further, he submitted that no previous case pending against the petitioner. However, he raised objection to grant bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis there is no bad antecedents against petitioner and also the contraband seized from the petitioner is intermediate quantity. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.5. 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 Principal Special Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, Madras, 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., until further orders. Further, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the credit of Tamil Nadu 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Advocate Clerks' Welfare Association, Chennai. [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.11.07.2024pbl4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.pblTo1. The I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS, Chennai.2. The Inspector of PoliceT-16, Semmanchery Police Station3. The Central Prison, Puzhal.4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Crl.O.P.No.14540 of 202411.07.20245/5
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.