Karpaga Prakash v. The Inspector of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Date: 21.12.2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble MR JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

1.Karpaga Prakash

2.Balamanikandan

3.Karthik Raja @ Pambu Karthick ... Petitioners/Accused (Rank not known)

Vs The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Thoothukudi. (Crime No.122 of 2023) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners :Mr.J.Kalyani, Advocate For Respondent :Mr.RMS.Sethuraman Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.122 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioners/Rank not known, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Clause 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act, 1955 in Crime No.122 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons were involved in illegal transportation of scheduled commodities. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and a false case has been foisted against them, hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the accused persons were involved in illegal transportation of scheduled commodities, hence, he objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.Taking into consideration the principles stated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Etc., vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 AIR 1632 and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in

(2009)4 SCC 437 and Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 and taking into consideration the origine of crime, it is seen that the offence alleged as against the petitioners is not a case of heinous crime. Further the petitioners are having permanent residents at Virudhunagar District. Hence the principles stated in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar reported in AIR 1979 SC 1360 is taken into consideration. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that pre-trial detention is not be encouraged nor is to be encourageable pre-trial release on sureties; that if the Court is satisfied after taking into consideration that the accused has his roots in the community and is not likely to abscond, they can safely be released on their personal bond.

6.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi, on condition that the petitioners shall execute own bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that : [a] the petitioners shall affix his photograph and Left Thumb Impression in the bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity. [b] the petitioners shall report before the trial Court on receipt of summons [c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [d] the petitioners shall not abscond 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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]. CRL.O.P.(MD).No.23169eofe2023 [f]oIfotheoaccusedothereafteroabsconds,oaofreshoFIRocanobeoregisteredounder Sectiono229AoIPC.ooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooosd/- ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooo21/12/2023 oooo ooooooooooo/oTRUEoCOPYo/ ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooo/01/2024 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooSub-AssistantoRegistraro(C.S.o-I,oII,oIII,oIV) ooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooMaduraioBenchoofoMadrasoHighoCourt, ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooMaduraio-o625o023.oo cmroo TO

1.THEooJUDICIALoMAGISTRATEoNO.I,oTHOOTHUKUDI, 2oDOoTHROUGHoTHEoCHIEFoJUDICIALoMAGISTRATE,o oooTHOOTHUKUDI

3.THEoINSPECTORoOFoPOLICE, ooCIVILoSUPPLIESoCID,oooTHOOTHUKUDI.oooo

4.THEoADDITIONALoPUBLICoPROSECUTOR, oooMADURAIoBENCHoOFoMADRASoHIGHoCOURT,oMADURAI. +1oCCotooM/s.T.LENINKUMAR,oAdvocateo(oSR-18238[I]odatedo22/12/2023o) ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooORDER ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.23169oofo2023 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooDateoo:21/12/2023 RK/VRo(29/12/2023)ooo5Po/o6Co MaduraioBenchoofooMadrasoHighoCourtoooisoissuingocertifiedocopiesoinothisoformatofrom 17/07/2023o