J. CHANDRAN, District and Sessions Judge, District Court No.2, Kancheepuram

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NO.II, KANCHEEPURAM.

PRESENT: J. CHANDRAN, District and Sessions Judge, District Court No.2, Kancheepuram.

This Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020

Crl.M.P. No.815/2020

1. Ramamoorthi, S/o Gopal Naicker 2. Senthilkumar, S/o Loganathan. 3. Annappan, S/o Gopal Naicker All are residing at Mettu Street, Alagoor Village, Sriperumbudur taluk, Kanchipuram District...... Petitioners/Accused.

//Vs// State: Represented by The Inspector of Police, Somangalam Police Station. Cr.No.310/2020

.....Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came up before me through On line as well as whats App for hearing today which was filed by the counsel for the petitioner M/s E.L.Kannan, V.Srinivasan and of Mr. K.Sampath, the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, upon perusing the entire records, having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court passed the following.

ORDER

1. This petition for bail filed by the counsel for the petitioners/ accused through online to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners that the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.04.2020 for the offence punishable u/s 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC, that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution, that they are innocent and hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

3. The learned public prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners were arrested on 29.04.2020, that the petitioners had jointly assaulted the de facto complainant , that the injured/de facto complainant was discharged from the hospital.

4. Point for Consideration: Whether the petition seeking anticipatory bail is to be allowed or not? is the question to be decided in this petition.

5. To the point: It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the offence u/s 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC and they are in custody from 29.04.2020. It is to be pointed out that except the offence u/s 506(2) of IPC all other offences are bailable in nature. The learned public prosecutor has fairly admitted that the injured / de facto complainant has already been discharged from the hospital after taking treatment. The injuries might have been simple in nature as the offence u/s 323 and 324 of IPC alone were registered as against the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the out break of Covid 19, it is unsafe for the petitioners as well as the other inmates of the prison to kept the petitioners inside the prison for a longer period of time. The material portion of investigation might have been completed at this point of time and hence, this court is inclined to allow the petition and the point is decided accordingly. In the result, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on execution of their own bond for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The above accused shall surrender before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur on 08.06.2020 without fail and further they are directed to execute a fresh bond each for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) along with two sureties of like sum each.

//This order has been dictated by me to the Stenographer, typed by her in the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Court on this Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020.//

Sd/- J.Chandran District and Sessions Judge, District and Sessions Court No.II, Kancheepuram.

Copy to:

1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur. 2. The Inspector of Police, Somangalam Police Station. 3. The Public Prosecutor. 4. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Kanchipuram.

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NO.II, KANCHEEPURAM.

PRESENT: J. CHANDRAN, District and Sessions Judge, District Court No.2, Kancheepuram.

This Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020

Crl.M.P. Nos. 835/2020

1. Moorthy, S/o Shanmugham, No. 19, Mettu Street, Karaima Nagar, Kundrathur, Chennai. 2. Seeralan, Male, S/o Annamalai, No. 2, Bajanai koil street, Karaima Nagar, Kundrathur, Chennai.

...... Petitioners /Accused.

//Vs//

State: Represented by The Inspector of Police, Sriperumbudur Police Station Cr.No.541/2020 .....Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came up before me through On line as well as whats App for hearing today which was filed by the counsels for the petitioners Mr. B.Gopinath, the and of Mr. K.Sampath, the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, upon perusing the entire records, having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court passed the following. COMMON ORDER

1. The petition is filed for bail filed by the counsel for the petitioners/ accused through online to release the petitioners on bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners were was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the offence u/s 4(1-A) 4(1)(aa) and 4(1)(g) of TNP Act and they are in judicial custody from 24.04.2020 for possession of illicit liquor which does not contains any poisonous substance, that as the properties had been seized the material portion of investigation would have been completed and hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

3. The learned public prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners along with other accused had manufacturing the illicit poisonous arrack in an illegal manner, that when the police had attempted to arrest the petitioners all the accused were escaped from the place of occurrence, that if the petitioners are released on anticipatory bail they may again commit the same kind of an offence and hence he objected to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail. . . 4. Point for Consideration: . Whether the petition seeking bail is to be allowed or not? . is the question to be decided in this petition. . . 5. To the point: . It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were arrested by the respondent police for the offence u/s 4(1-A) 4(1)(aa) and 4(1)(g) of TNP Act and they are in judicial custody from 24.04.2020. It is the case of the prosecution that the possession of illicit arrack were said to have been seized from the petitioners which contain poisonous substance according to the prosecution agency during the period of lock down. Whether the contents found in the seized article contains poisonous substance or not is to be decided only after the receipt of the chemical report. Till such time the innocence of the petitioners can be taken as a prima facie case. The entire liquor were seized by the police and hence, the material portion of investigation would have been completed at this point of time. The petitioners are in custody from 24.04.2020 and hence, he would have realized their mistake/wrong if any committed by them. As the entire nation is facing lock down due to Covid 19 if the petitioners are allowed to kept inside the prison for a long period of time it would affect the family circumstances of the petitioners. The police official alone is the de facto complainant in this case and hence, the question of tampering the witness does not arise. Considering the above stated circumstances and in the interest of justice this court is inclined to allow the petition and the point is decided accordingly. . . In the result, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on execution of their own bond for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The above accused shall surrender before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur on 08.06.2020 without fail and further they are directed to execute a fresh bond each for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) along with two sureties of like sum each.

. //This order has been dictated by me to the Stenographer, typed by her in the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Court on this Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020.// . Sd/- J.Chandran District and Sessions Judge, . District and Sessions Court No.II, . Kancheepuram. . . Copy to: . . 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur. . 2. The Inspector of Police, Sriperumbudur Police station . 3. The Public Prosecutor. . 4. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Kanchipuram. IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NO.II, KANCHEEPURAM.

PRESENT: J. CHANDRAN, District and Sessions Judge, District Court No.2, Kancheepuram.

This Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020

Crl.M.P. No.822/2020

Srinivasan, S/o Somanathan, No. 3/353, Mettu Koil Street, Alagoor Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk ...... Petitioner/Accused.

//Vs// State: Represented by The Inspector of Police, Somangalam Police Station. Cr.No. 311/2019 .....Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came up before me through On line as well as whats App for hearing today which was filed by the counsel for the petitioner Mr.B.Gopinath and of Mr. K.Sampath, the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, upon perusing the entire records, having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court passed the following.

ORDER

1. This petition for bail filed by the counsel for the petitioners/ accused through online to release the petitioners on bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested by the respondent police for the offence u/s 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) of IPR r/w sec. 4 of TNPHW Act, that the petitioner is not involved in this occurrence, that the Hon'ble High Court has held that the offence u/s 4 of TNPHW Act is a bailable one as per the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Crl.O.P.No. 9503/2017 in Kashmir Raja and Pushpamari //vs// State by Inspector of Police, Keelathukal Police Station, Ramanathapuram District in Cr.No. 68/2017 and hence he prays for allowing the petition.

3. The learned public prosecutor has submitted that the injured / de facto complainant has not been discharged from the hospital and he is taking treatment as an inpatient, that the investigation has not been completed and if the petitioner is released on bail at this crucial stage it would affect the case of the prosecution.

. 4. Point for Consideration: . Whether the petition seeking bail is to be allowed or not? . is the question to be decided in this petition. . . 5. To the point: . It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was arrested for the offence u/s 294(b), 323, 324, 506(2) of IPR r/w sec. 4 of TNPHW Act and he was remanded to judicial custody on 28.04.2020. The learned public prosecutor has submitted that the injured/de facto complainant who being the woman is still taking treatment as an inpatient and she has not been discharged from the hospital so far. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court regarding the offence u/s 4 of TNPHW Act, as if the said offence is to be treated as a bailable one. When the injured/de facto complainant has not been discharged from the hospital it shall be prima facie presumed that the injuries sustained by her might be a serious one. The offence u/s 506(2) of IPC admittedly is a non bailable offence and the same has to be read with the nature of the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant / injured. 6. If the petitioner is released on bail at this point of time it would definitely affect the case of the prosecution considerably. The date of occurrence is only 28.04.2020 and as it is a fresh case the prosecution has to be allowed to conduct its investigation in a free and fair manner. Considering the above stated circumstances and taking note of the fact that the injured has not been discharged from the hospital this court is not inclined to allow the petitioner at this point of time and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed and the point is decided accordingly.

In the result, this petition is dismissed. . . //This order has been dictated by me to the Stenographer, typed by her in the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Court on this Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020.// . Sd/- J.Chandran District and Sessions Judge, . District and Sessions Court No.II, . Kancheepuram. . . IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NO.II, KANCHEEPURAM.

PRESENT: J. CHANDRAN, District and Sessions Judge, District Court No.2, Kancheepuram.

This Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020

Crl.M.P. Nos.828/2020 & 829/2020

Crl.M.P.No. 828/2020 1. Ambethkar, Male, S/o Munusamy, 2. Baskar, Male, S/o Natesan Both are residing at Mariamman Koil Street, Thammanur Village, Kanchipuram...... Petitioners/Accused. Crl.M.P.No. 827/2020

Dayalan, Male, S/o Ponnusamy, No. 11, Mariamman Koil Street, Thammanur Village, Kanchipuram...... Petitioner/Accused.

//Vs// State: Represented by The Inspector of Police, PEW, Kanchipuram. Cr.No.223/2020 .....Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came up before me through On line as well as whats App for hearing today which was filed by the counsels for the petitioners in CMP.No. 828/2020 M/s G.M.Sankar and V.Deelabanu, the counsel for the petitioner in CMP.No. 829/2020 Mr. C.Baskaran and of Mr. K.Sampath, the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, upon perusing the entire records, having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court passed the following. COMMON ORDER 1. These petitions for bail filed by the counsel for the petitioners/ accused through online to release the petitioners on bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the offence u/s 4(1)(a) 4(1-A) of TNP Act and they are in judicial custody from 27.04.2020 for possession of 20 liters of liquor which does not contains any poisonous substance, that as the properties had been seized the material portion of investigation would have been completed and hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

3. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners were in possession of 20 liters of liquor in two 10 liter cans, that they are in custody from 27.04.2020, that the petitioners Ambethkar and Baskar are having no previous case and the petitioner Dayalan is having three previous cases, that the investigation has not been completed and hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. . . 4. Point for Consideration: . Whether the petitions seeking bail is to be allowed or not? . is the question to be decided in this petition. . . 5. To the point: . It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was arrested by the respondent police for the offence u/s 4(1)(a) 4(1-A) of TNP Act and they are in judicial custody from 27.04.2020. It is the case of the prosecution that 20 liters of liquor in two 10 liter cans were said to have been seized from the petitioners which contain poisonous substance according to the prosecution agency during the period of lock down. Whether the contents found in the seized article contains poisonous substance or not is to be decided only after the receipt of the chemical report. Till such time the innocence of the petitioners can be taken as a prima facie case. The entire liquor were seized by the police and hence, the material portion of investigation would have been completed at this point of time. The petitioners are in custody from 27.04.2020 and hence, he would have realized his mistake/wrong if any committed by him. As the entire nation is facing lock down due to Covid 19 if the petitioner is allowed to kept inside the prison for a long period of time it would affect the family circumstances of the petitioners. The police official alone is the de facto complainant in this case and hence, the question of tampering the witness does not arise. The petitioners had not manufacturing the illicit arrack even according to the prosecution but they are in possession of 20 liters of liquor. Considering the above stated circumstances and in the interest of justice this court is inclined to allow the petition and the point is decided accordingly. . . In the result, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on execution of their own bond for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The above accused shall surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram on 08.06.2020 without fail and further he is directed to execute a fresh bond each for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) along with two sureties of like sum each. . . //This order has been dictated by me to the Stenographer, typed by her in the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Court on this Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020.// . Sd/- J.Chandran District and Sessions Judge, . District and Sessions Court No.II, . Kancheepuram. . . Copy to: . . 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram. . 2. The Inspector of Police, PEW, Kanchipuram. . 3. The Public Prosecutor. 4. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Kanchipuram. . . IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NO.II, KANCHEEPURAM.

PRESENT: J. CHANDRAN, District and Sessions Judge, District Court No.2, Kancheepuram.

This Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020

Crl.M.P. Nos.834/2020

1. Karthi, Male, S/o Chandran, Big Street, Keevaloor Village, Sriperumbudur taluk, Kanchipuram District. 2. Naveen, Male, S/o Sekar, Big Street, Keevaloor Village, Sriperumbudur taluk, Kanchipuram District...... Petitioners/Accused.

//Vs//

State: Represented by The Inspector of Police, Sriperumbudur Police Station Cr.No.541/2020 .....Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came up before me through On line as well as whats App for hearing today which was filed by the counsels for the petitioners Mr. B.Gopinath, and of Mr. K.Sampath, the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, upon perusing the entire records, having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court passed the following. COMMON ORDER

1. The petition is filed for anticipatory bail by the counsel for the petitioners/ accused through online to release the petitioners on bail u/s 438 of Cr.P.C 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioners apprehends that they may be arrested by the respondent police for the offence u/s 4(1-A) 4(1)(aa) and 4(1)(g) of TNP Act, that they have not committed any offence and they are innocent, that the petitioners are working as a daily wages coolie and they are no way connected with the crime and prays for allowing the petition.

3. The learned public prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners along with other accused had manufacturing the illicit poisonous arrack in an illegal manner, that when the police had attempted to arrest the petitioners all the accused were escaped from the place of occurrence that the first petitioner namely Karthi is having two other criminal cases in Cr.No. 772/2019 u/s 294(b) of IPC and 7(1)(a) of CLA Act and Cr.No. 727/2014 u/s 147, 148, 294(b), 506(2) of IPC and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, that if the petitioners are released on anticipatory bail they may again commit the same kind of an offence and hence he objected to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail. . 4. Point for Consideration: . Whether the petition seeking bail is to be allowed or not? . is the question to be decided in this petition. . . 5. To the point: . It is an admitted fact that the prosecution agency has taken steps to arrest the petitioners for the offence u/s 4(1-A) 4(1)(aa) and 4(1)(g) of TNP Act on the ground that both the petitioners along with other accused had attempted to manufacture the illicit poisonous arrack with an intention to sell the same to others during the lock down period. The alleged date of occurrence is 24-04-2020 and as it is a fresh case the prosecution agency has to be allowed to conduct the investigation in a fresh and fair manner. When the petitioners were involved in manufacturing the illicit poisonous arrack according to the prosecution case, it is not safe to allow the petition at this crucial period of investigation. The process of manufacturing the illicit arrack are being increased by the persons like these petitioners all over Tamilnadu during the period of lock down according to the prosecution agency. If the petition is allowed it would affect the case of the prosecution seriously. Considering the above stated circumstances and in the interest of justice this court is not inclined to allow the petition and the point is decided accordingly.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

//This order has been dictated by me to the Stenographer, typed by her in the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Court on this Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020.// . Sd/-J.Chandran District and Sessions Judge, . District and Sessions Court No.II, . Kancheepuram. . . IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NO.II, KANCHEEPURAM.

PRESENT: J. CHANDRAN, District and Sessions Judge, District Court No.2, Kancheepuram.

This Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020

Crl.M.P. No.809/2020

Prasanth, Male, S/o Velayutham, No. 19, Mettu Street, Singadivakkam Village, Kanchipuram...... Petitioner/Accused.

//Vs// State: Represented by The Inspector of Police, PEW, Kanchipuram. Cr.No.221/2020 .....Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came up before me through On line as well as whats App for hearing today which was filed by the counsel for the petitioner Mr.V.Senthil, V.Srinivasan and of Mr. K.Sampath, the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, upon perusing the entire records, having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court passed the following.

ORDER

1. This petition for bail filed by the counsel for the petitioner/ accused through online to release the petitioner on bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the offence u/s 4(1)(a) 4(1-A) of TNP Act and he is in judicial custody from 26.04.2020 for possession of 5 liters of liquor which does not contains any poisonous substance, that as the properties had been seized the material portion of investigation would have been completed and hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

3. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner was in possession of 5 liters of liquor in a 5 liter can, that he was in custody from 26.04.2020, that he is having no previous case, that the investigation has not been completed and hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. . . 4. Point for Consideration: . Whether the petition seeking bail is to be allowed or not? . is the question to be decided in this petition. . . 5. To the point: . It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was arrested by the respondent police for the offence u/s 4(1)(a) 4(1-A) of TNP Act and he is in judicial custody from 26.04.2020. It is the case of the prosecution that 5 liters of of liquor in a 5 liter can were said to have been seized from the petitioner which contain poisonous substance according to the prosecution agency during the period of lock down. Whether the contents found in the seized article contains poisonous substance or not is to be decided only after the receipt of the chemical report. Till such time the innocence of the petitioner can be taken as a prima facie case. The entire liquor were seized by the police and hence, the material portion of investigation would have been completed at this point of time. The petitioner is in custody from 26.04.2020 and hence, he would have realized his mistake/wrong if any committed by him. As the entire nation is facing lock down due to Covid 19 if the petitioner is allowed to kept inside the prison for a long period of time it would affect the family circumstances of the petitioner. The police official alone is the de facto complainant in this case and hence, the question of tampering the witness does not arise. The petitioner has not manufacturing the illicit arrack even according to the prosecution but he was in possession of 5 liters of liquor. Considering the above stated circumstances and in the interest of justice this court is inclined to allow the petition and the point is decided accordingly. . . In the result, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on execution of his own bond for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The above accused shall surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram on 08.06.2020 without fail and further he is directed to execute a fresh bond each for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) along with two sureties of like sum each. . . //This order has been dictated by me to the Stenographer, typed by her in the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Court on this Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020.// . Sd/-J.Chandran District and Sessions Judge, . District and Sessions Court No.II, . Kancheepuram. . . Copy to: . . 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram. . 2. The Inspector of Police, PEW, Kanchipuram. . 3. The Public Prosecutor. . 4. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Kanchipuram. .

. IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NO.II, KANCHEEPURAM.

PRESENT: J. CHANDRAN, District and Sessions Judge, District Court No.2, Kancheepuram.

This Tuesday the 5th day of April 2020

Crl.M.P. No.810/2020

Thanigaiarasu. S/o Nagoor, No. 38, Palla Street, Singadivakkam Village, Kanchipuram...... Petitioner/Accused.

//Vs// State: Represented by The Inspector of Police, PEW, Kanchipuram. Cr.No.222/2020 .....Respondent/Complainant.

ORDER 1. This petition for bail filed by the counsel for the petitioner/ accused through online to release the petitioner on bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C.

3. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner was in possession of 5 liters of liquor in a 5 liter can, that he is in custody from 26.04.2020, that he is having no previous case, that the investigation has not been completed and hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. . . 4. Point for Consideration: . Whether the petition seeking bail is to be allowed or not? . is the question to be decided in this petition. . . 5. To the point: . It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was arrested by the respondent police for the offence u/s 4(1)(a) 4(1-A) of TNP Act and he is in judicial custody from 26.04.2020. It is the case of the prosecution that 5 liters of of liquor in a 5 liter can were said to have been seized from the petitioner which contain poisonous substance according to the prosecution agency during the period of lock down. Whether the contents found in the seized article contains poisonous substance or not is to be decided only after the receipt of the chemical report. Till such time the innocence of the petitioner can be taken as a prima facie case. The entire liquor were seized by the police and hence, the material portion of investigation would have been completed at this point of time. The petitioner is in custody from 26.04.2020 and hence, he would have realized his mistake/wrong if any committed by him. As the entire nation is facing lock down due to Covid 19 if the petitioner is allowed to kept inside the prison for a long period of time it would affect the family circumstances of the petitioner. The police official alone is the de facto complainant in this case and hence, the question of tampering the witness does not arise. The petitioner has not manufacturing the illicit arrack even according to the prosecution but he was in possession of 5 liters of liquor. Considering the above stated circumstances and in the interest of justice this court is inclined to allow the petition and the point is decided accordingly. . . In the result, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on execution of his own bond for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The above accused shall surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram on 08.06.2020 without fail and further he is directed to execute a fresh bond each for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) along with two sureties of like sum each. . . //This order has been dictated by me to the Stenographer, typed by her in the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Court on this Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020.//

. Sd/- J.Chandran District and Sessions Judge, . District and Sessions Court No.II, . Kancheepuram. . . Copy to: . . 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram. . 2. The Inspector of Police, PEW, Kanchipuram. . 3. The Public Prosecutor. . 4. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Kanchipuram.

. IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NO.II, KANCHEEPURAM.

PRESENT: J. CHANDRAN, District and Sessions Judge, District Court No.2, Kancheepuram.

This Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020

Crl.M.P. No.811/2020

Murugan, Male, S/o Ellappan, Perumal Koil Street, Kovalavedu Village, Kunnam Post, Walajabad Taluk, Kanchipuram District...... Petitioner/Accused.

//Vs// State: Represented by The Inspector of Police, Walajabad Police Statikon Cr.No.468/2020 .....Respondent/Complainant.

ORDER

1. This petition for bail filed by the counsel for the petitioner/ accused through online to release the petitioner on bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the offence u/s 4(1) (a), 4(1-A) of TNP Act r/w 6 & 11 of RS Rules and he is in custody from 24.04.2020, that as the entire 150 covers of illicit arrack were seized, the material portion of investigation would have been completed, that the petitioner is having no previous case and hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

3. The learned public prosecutor has submitted that 150 covers of illicit arrack weighing 100 ml each were seized from the petitioner, that he is in custody from 24.04.2020 and they are awaiting for chemical report. . . 4. Point for Consideration: . Whether the petition seeking bail is to be allowed or not? . is the question to be decided in this petition. . . 5. To the point: . It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was arrested for the offence u/s 4(1)(a) 4(1-A) of TNP Act r/w 6 & 11 of RS Rules and he is in custody from 24.04.2020. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was in possession of 150 covers of illicit arrack weighing 100 ml each during the lock down period. Whether the contents found in the seized article contains poisonous substance or not is to be decided only after the receipt of chemical report. Till such time the innocence of the petitioner can be taken as a prima facie case. The entire 150 pockets of illicit arrack were seized by the police and hence, the material portion of investigation would have been completed at this point of time. The petitioner is in custody from 24.04.2020 and hence, he would have realized his mistake/wrong if any committed by him. As the entire nation is facing lock down due to the Covid 19 if the petitioner is allowed to kept inside the prison for a long period of time it would affect the family circumstances of the petitioner. The police official alone is the de facto complainant in this case and hence, the question of tampering the witness does not arise. The petitioner is not manufacturing the illicit arrack even according to the prosecution, but he was in possession of 150 pockets of illicit arrack. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 24.04.2020. Considering the above stated circumstances and in the interest of justice this court is inclined to allow the petition and the point is decided accordingly. . In the result, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on execution of his own bond for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The above accused shall surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kanchipuram on 08.06.2020 without fail and further he is directed to execute a fresh bond each for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) along with two sureties of like sum each. . . //This order has been dictated by me to the Stenographer, typed by her in the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Court on this Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020.// . Sd/J.Chandran District and Sessions Judge, . District and Sessions Court No.II, . Kancheepuram. . . Copy to: . . 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kanchipuram. . 2. The Inspector of Police, Walajabad police station . 3. The Public Prosecutor. . 4. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Kanchipuram. .

. IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NO.II, KANCHEEPURAM.

PRESENT: J. CHANDRAN, District and Sessions Judge, District Court No.2, Kancheepuram.

This Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020

Crl.M.P. No. 812/2020, 813/2020 and 814/2020

Crl.M.P.No. 812/2020:- Magi @ Mahindran, S.o S/o Munusamy, No. 1/53,Ellaiamman koil Street, Naduveerapattu Village, Kundrarhur takuk, Kanchipuram.

...... Petitioner/Accused.

Crl.M.P.No. 813/2020:- Karthi, S/o Arjunan, NO.1/96, Periyapalaiyathamman koil Street, Naduveerapattu village, Kundrathur, Kanchipuram

...... Petitioner/Accused. CMP.No. 814/2020:- 1. Naresh @ Nareshkumar, S/o Munusamy, No. 2/167, Nehru Street, Maragadam Nagar, Naduveerapattu village, Kundrathur Taluk. 2. Mathi @ Mathivannan, S/o Kalyanasundaram, No. 2/115, Kannagi Street, Ambedkar Nagar, Naduveerapattu village, Kundrathur Taluk.

...... Petitioners/Accused. /Vs// State: Represented by The Inspector of Police, Somangalam Police Station Cr.No.232/2020 .....Respondent/Complainant.

These petitions came up before me through On line as well as whats App for hearing today which was filed by the counsel for the petitioner M/s E.Kirubanithi, K.Kathiravan and M.P.Yuvaraj counsels for the petitioner in CMP.No. 812/2020, Mr.B.Gopinath in CMP.Nos.813/2020 and 814/2020 and of Mr. K.Sampath, the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, upon perusing the entire records, having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court passed the following. COMMON ORDER

1. These petitions for bail filed by the counsels for the petitioners/ accused through online to release the petitioners on bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners were arrested by the respondent police for the offence u/s 4(1-A), 4(1- aaa), 4(1-g) of TNP Act , that the petitioners are in custody from 15.04.2020, that as the properties had been seized he prays for allowing the petition.

3. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners along with one another accused had joined together and illegally manufacturing illicit arrack by using rectified spirit, that they are in possession of 130 liter of spurious arrack, that the investigation has not been completed and hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. . . 4. Point for Consideration: . Whether the petition seeking bail is to be allowed or not? . is the question to be decided in this petition. . . 5. To the point: . It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were arrested by the respondent police for the offence u/s 4(1-A), 4(1-aaa), 4(1-g) of TNP Act and they are in judicial custody from 15.04.2020. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner namely Karthi along with other accused namely Naresh @ Nareshkumar, Mathi @ Mathivanan and Magi @ Mahindran had jointly manufactured the illicit poisonous arrack, that the prosecution agency had seized rectified spirit in a barrel totally weighing about 150 liters. They were in possession of other ingredients and the materials for manufacturing of illicit arrack for selling the same to other public to enrange themselves. Whether the contents found in the seized article contains poisonous substance or not is to be decided only after the receipt of the chemical report. Till such time the innocence of the petitioners can be taken as a prima facie case. The entire liquor were seized by the police and hence, the material portion of investigation would have been completed at this point of time. The petitioners are in custody from 15.04.2020 and hence, they would have realized his mistake/wrong if any committed by them. As the entire nation is facing lock down due to Covid 19 if the petitioners are allowed to kept inside the prison for a long period of time it would affect the family circumstances of the petitioner. The police official alone is the de facto complainant in this case and hence, the question of tampering the witness does not arise. Considering the above stated circumstances, considering the period of incarceration and in the interest of justice this court is inclined to allow the petition and the point is decided accordingly. In the result, these petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on execution of their own bond for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The above accused shall surrender before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur on 08.06.2020 without fail and further they are directed to execute a fresh bond each for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) along with two sureties for a like sum each. . . //This order has been dictated by me to the Stenographer, typed by her in the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Court on this Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020.// . Sd/-J.Chandran District and Sessions Judge, . District and Sessions Court No.II, . Kancheepuram. . Copy to: . 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur. . 2. The Inspector of Police, Somangalam Police Station. . 3. The Public Prosecutor. . 4. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Madurantagam. . . IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NO.II, KANCHEEPURAM.

PRESENT: J. CHANDRAN, District and Sessions Judge, District Court No.2, Kancheepuram.

This Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020

Crl.M.P. No.816/2020

1. A.2 Kalaiyarasi, W/o Ganesan. 2. A.3 Manigandan, S/o Ganesan. Both are residing at Mariamman Koil Street, Vengudi Village, Walajabad taluk, Kanchipuram District ...... Petitioners/Accused.

//Vs// State: Represented by The Inspector of Police, PEW, Kanchipuram. Cr.No.177/2020 .....Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came up before me through On line as well as whats App for hearing today which was filed by the counsels for the petitioners M/s L.Sowmiyanarayanan, S.Desai and of Mr. K.Sampath, the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, upon perusing the entire records, having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court passed the following.

ORDER

1. This petition for bail filed by the counsel for the petitioners/ accused through online to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail u/s 438 of Cr.P.C.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners were being searched by the respondent police to arrest them for the offence u/s 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) of TNP Act r/w 6 & 11 of RS Rules, that the material portion of investigation would have been completed and hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

3. The learned public prosecutor has submitted that A.1 in this case was arrested and released on bail, that A1 along with the petitioners were in possession of 35 liters of illicit arrack and 30 pockets each containing 100 ml totally 668 liters of illicit arrack, that the 1st petitioner is having 33 previous cases and two times she was detained under Goondas Act. . . 4. Point for Consideration: . Whether the petition seeking anticipatory bail is to be allowed or not? . is the question to be decided in this petition. . . 5. To the point: . It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are being searched by the respondent police to arrest them in connection with the alleged offence punishable u/s 4(1)(aaa) 4(1-A) of TNP Act r/w Sec 6 & 11 of RS Rules. The alleged occurrence was said to have been taken place on 23.03.3020 and for which the petitioners has moved for anticipatory bail before this Court. As the case was registered for the cognizable offence, there is every possibility for the police to arrest the petitioners without a warrant of arrest. Hence the apprehension of the petitioners is a reasonable one. It is also an admitted fact that the co accused namely A.1 Vinothkumar @ Chetti was arrested and he was ordered to be released on bail. A.1 was arrested as early as on 23- 03-2020 and hence, the date of occurrence might be either on 23.02.2020 or prior to that. But the prosecution agency has not taken any effective steps to arrest the petitioners till today and the same would shows that the police does not requires the custodial interrogation of the petitioners. The entire properties related to this case were already been recovered from the possession of A.1 even as per the reply submitted by the prosecution agency. The petitioners being the mother and son, the police could not have been arrested by the prosecution agency. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner namely Kalaiarasi was detained under Goondas Act twice and she is having 33 cases of this nature right from the year 2002. Why the prosecution agency has not taken any effective steps to prevent the petitioners from committing this kind of an offence regularly has not been explained by the prosecution agency. They are not produced any case details which are pending as against the second petitioner. Considering the above stated circumstances and considering the fact that the co accused has already been released on bail, this court is inclined to allow the petition and the point is decided accordingly.

In the result, this petition is allowed and the prosecution agency is hereby directed not to arrest the petitioners in this Crime Number 171/2020 of PEW, Kanchipuram and further the petitioners are directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kancheepuram 08.06.2020 without fail and further they are directed to execute a fresh bond for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) along with two sureties for a like sum each. . . //This order has been dictated by me to the Stenographer, typed by her in the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Court on this Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020.// . Sd/-J.Chandran District and Sessions Judge, . District and Sessions Court No.II, . Kancheepuram. . . Copy to: . 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kanchipuram. . 2. The Inspector of Police, PEW, Kanchipuram. . 3. The Public Prosecutor. . . IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NO.II, KANCHEEPURAM.

PRESENT: J. CHANDRAN, District and Sessions Judge, District Court No.2, Kancheepuram.

This Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020

Crl.M.P. No.817/2020

Karthi, S/o Balu Pandiyan, Bramana Theru, Marudam Village, Thirupulivanam Post, Uthiramerur Taluk, Kanchipuram...... Petitioner/Accused.

//Vs// State: Represented by The Inspector of Police, PEW, Madurantagam Cr.No.226/2020 .....Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came up before me through On line as well as whats App for hearing today which was filed by the counsel for the petitioner M/s P.Sathiyanarayanan, S.Sathiya and of Mr. K.Sampath, the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, upon perusing the entire records, having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court passed the following.

ORDER

1. This petition for bail filed by the counsel for the petitioner/ accused through online to release the petitioner on bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested by the respondent police for possession of 35 liters of illicit arrack, that the petitioner is in custody from 21.04.2020, that as the properties had been seized he prays for allowing the petition.

3. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner is in possession of 35 liters of illicit arrack, that the investigation has not been completed and hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. . . 4. Point for Consideration: . Whether the petition seeking bail is to be allowed or not? . is the question to be decided in this petition. . . 5. To the point: It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was arrested by the respondent police for the offence u/s 4(1)(aa) 4(1-A) of TNP Act r/w sec. 6 & 11 of RS Rules and he is in judicial custody from 21.04.2020 and 35 liters of illicit arrack were said to have been seized from the petitioner which contain poisonous substance according to the prosecution agency during the period of lock down. Whether the contents found in the seized article contains poisonous substance or not is to be decided only after the receipt of the chemical report. Till such time the innocence of the petitioner can be taken as a prima facie case. The entire 35 liters of illicit arrack were seized by the police and hence, the material portion of investigation would have been completed at this point of time. The petitioner is in custody from 21.04.2020 and hence, he would have realized his mistake/wrong if any committed by him. As the entire nation is facing lock down due to Covid 19 if the petitioner is allowed to kept inside the prison for a long period of time it would affect the family circumstances of the petitioner. The police official alone is the de facto complainant in this case and hence, the question of tampering the witness does not arise. The petitioner has not manufacturing the illicit arrack even according to the prosecution. All the previous cases were registered only u/s 4(1)(a) of TNP Act which is bailable in nature. Considering the above stated circumstances and in the interest of justice this court is inclined to allow the petition and the point is decided accordingly. . . In the result, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on execution of his own bond for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The above accused shall surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram on 08.06.2020 without fail and further he is directed to execute a fresh bond each for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) along with two sureties of like sum each. . . //This order has been dictated by me to the Stenographer, typed by her in the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Court on this Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020.// . Sd/-J.Chandran District and Sessions Judge, . District and Sessions Court No.II, . Kancheepuram. . . Copy to: . . 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanchipuram. . 2. The Inspector of Police, PEW, Madurantakam . 3. The Public Prosecutor. . 4. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Madurantakam . .

. IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NO.II, KANCHEEPURAM.

PRESENT: J. CHANDRAN, District and Sessions Judge, District Court No.2, Kancheepuram.

This Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020

Crl.M.P. No.823/2020

1. Vignesh, S/o Thirumalai, No.3/106, Bajanai koil street, Old Nallur Village, Kundrathur taluk 2. Vignesh, S/o Thulasi, No.3/38, Bajanai koil street, Old Nallur Village, Kundrathur taluk ...... Petitioners/Accused.

//Vs// State: Represented by The Inspector of Police, Somangalam Police Station. Cr.No. 236/2020 .....Respondent/Complainant.

ORDER

1. This petition for bail filed by the counsel for the petitioners/ accused through online to release the petitioners on bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that this is the 2nd bail application, that the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the offence u/s 394 of IPC on 17.04.2020, that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution, that they have no bad antecedents and hence, he prays for allowing the petitin.

. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners were arrested only on 17.04.2020 for the offence u/s 394 of IPC, that the investigation has not been completed as it is a fresh case, that if the petitioners are released on bail it is difficulty for the prosecution to watch each and every movements of the petitioners during the lock down and hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. . . 4. Point for Consideration: . Whether the petition seeking bail is to be allowed or not? . is the question to be decided in this petition. . . 5. To the point: . It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were arrested by the respondent police for the offence u/s 394 of IPC on 17.04.2020. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners had assaulted the de facto complainant while committing the robbery, that they had criminally intimidated the de facto complainant and commit robbery without bothering the fact that the entire nation is under the lock down due to the covid 19. The date of occurrence is 17.04.2020 and as it is a fresh case, the prosecution agency has to be allowed to conduct its investigation in a free and fair manner for which the custody of the petitioners are very much essential. The petitioners were bold enough to commit decoity even though the entire nation is under lock down due to Covid 19 according to the prosecution agency and it has to be viewed very seriously. If the petitioners are released on bail at this point of time the safety and security of the entire public at large would be in serious question. Every movement of the petitioners could not be watched by the police during this period of lock down. The petitioners have not shown any change of circumstances to interfere with the earlier orders passed by this court. Considering the above stated circumstances and in the interest of justice this court is not inclined to allow the petition and the point is decided accordingly.

In the result, this petition is dismissed. . . //This order has been dictated by me to the Stenographer, typed by her in the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Court on this Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020.// . Sd/-J.Chandran District and Sessions Judge, . District and Sessions Court No.II, . Kancheepuram...... IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NO.II, KANCHEEPURAM.

PRESENT: J. CHANDRAN, District and Sessions Judge, District Court No.2, Kancheepuram.

This Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020

Crl.M.P. No.830/2020

1. Mohan, Male, S/o Parmeshwaran, 7/90 Gandhi Street, Kalitipet, Kundrathur, Chennai. 2. Krishnakumar, Male, S/o Marimuthu, No. 3/65, gandhi Street, Kalitipet, Kundrathur, Chennai. 3. Kotteswaran , Male, S/o Rangan, 19, Perumal Koil Street, Natham, Kundrathur, Chennai 69...... Petitioners/Accused.

//Vs// State: Represented by The Inspector of Police, Kundrathur Police Station. Cr.No. 1230/2019 .....Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came up before me through On line as well as whats App for hearing today which was filed by the counsel for the petitioner Mr.P.D.Santhoshkumar and of Mr. K.Sampath, the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, upon perusing the entire records, having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court passed the following.

ORDER

1. This petition for bail filed by the counsel for the petitioners/ accused through online to release the petitioners on bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners were arrested by the respondent police for the offence u/s 147, 148 and 302 of IPC, that the petitioners are in incarceration for nearly 197 days, that the respondent police has not filed any final report as against the petitioners, that the petitioners will not tamper the witnesses or hamper the investigation and they will not abscond, that the investigation would have been completed and hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody from 17-10-2019, that as per the prosecution agency the final report had already been filed, that two of the co accused were already released on bail by this court, that if the petitioners are released on bail it would affect the process of investigation. . . 4. Point for Consideration: . Whether the petition seeking bail is to be allowed or not? . is the question to be decided in this petition. . . 5. To the point: . It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the offence u/s 147, 148 and 302 of IPC and they are in judicial custody for the past more than 200 days. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the final report has not been filed by the prosecution agency and filed this petition u/s 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The learned public prosecutor has fairly submitted that the final report had already been filed in this case and the same would shows that the investigation in this case would have been completed. The learned public prosecutor has also fairly submitted that two of the co accused were already released on bail. If really, the final report has not been filed till today by the prosecution agency, then the petitioner can claim the bail as a matter of right u/s 167(2) of Cr.P.C as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. If the prosecution agency had filed the final report before the trial court then it would be presumed that the investigation in this case might have been completed at this point of time. Both the learned counsels had not submitted any proof to prove their respective claim. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the fact that the petitioners are in judicial custody for more than 200 days in this case and considering the fact that two of the co accused were already released on bail in this case, this court is inclined to allow the petition and the point is decided accordingly.

In the result, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on execution of their own bond for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The above accused shall surrender before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur on 08.06.2020 without fail and further they are directed to execute a fresh bond each for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) along with two sureties of like sum each. . . //This order has been dictated by me to the Stenographer, typed by her in the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Court on this Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020.// . Sd/-J.Chandran District and Sessions Judge, . District and Sessions Court No.II, . Kancheepuram. . . Copy to: . . 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur . 2. The Inspector of Police, Kundrathur police station . 3. The Public Prosecutor. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal ...... IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NO.II, KANCHEEPURAM.

PRESENT: J. CHANDRAN, District and Sessions Judge, District Court No.2, Kancheepuram.

This Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020

Crl.M.P. No.833/2020

S.Mahendiran, Male, S/o Sivaji, Anna Nagar, Veerappan Naickenpatti, Arur Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

...... Petitioner/Accused.

//Vs// State: Represented by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Poonamallee Cr.No. 31/2019 .....Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came up before me through On line as well as whats App for hearing today which was filed by the counsel for the petitioner Mr.M.Mohanraj and of Mr. K.Sampath, the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, upon perusing the entire records, having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court passed the following.

ORDER

1. This petition for bail filed by the counsel for the petitioner/ accused through online to release the petitioners on bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the offence u/s 376 r/w 506(2) of IPC and he is in judicial custody from 31-12-2019, that the respondent police has not filed charge sheet in this case and as the petitioner is in judicial custody for the past 121 days he is entitled to claim the bail as a matter of right u/s 167(2) of Cr.P.C, that the investigation would have been completed.

. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner was arrested by the respondent police for the offence u/s 376 and 506(2) of IPC on 31.12.2019 for the allegations that the petitioner had committed rape on a mental disorder person, that the evidence of the victim was recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C, that the medical examination of the victim and the petitioner were conducted, that the final report has not been filed, though the petitioner is in custody for more than 90 days. . . 4. Point for Consideration: . Whether the petition seeking bail is to be allowed or not? . is the question to be decided in this petition. . . 5. To the point: . It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was arrested for the offence u/s 376 r/w 506(2) IPC and he is in judicial custody from 31.12.2019. It is the definite case of the petitioner that the prosecution agency had not filed any final report in this case within the prescribed time limit and hence, the petitioner has filed this petition u/s 167(2) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in this case on 31.12.2019 and hence, he is in custody for more than 120 days. The final report has to be filed within a period of 90 days as per the provision of Sec. 167(2) of Cr.P.C. If the final report has not been filed the petitioner is entitled to claim bail as a matter of right. 6. The alleged occurrence was said to have been taken place on 30.12.2019 and hence, the entire portion of investigation would have been completed at this point of time, if the final report has not been filed till today. The medical examination was completed and the victim girl was also examined u/s 164 of Cr.P.C and hence, the material portion of investigation would have been completed. The learned public prosecutor has not raised any serious objection to allow the petition. Considering the above stated circumstances and in the interest of justice this court is inclined to allow the petition and the point is decided accordingly. In the result, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on execution of his own bond for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The above accused shall surrender before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur on 08.06.2020 without fail and further he is directed to execute a fresh bond each for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) along with two sureties of like sum each. . . //This order has been dictated by me to the Stenographer, typed by her in the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Court on this Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020.// . Sd/J.Chandran District and Sessions Judge, . District and Sessions Court No.II, . Kancheepuram. . . Copy to: . . 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur . 2. The Inspector of Police, All Women police station, Poonamallee . 3. The Public Prosecutor. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal . . . . .

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NO.II, KANCHEEPURAM.

PRESENT: J. CHANDRAN, District and Sessions Judge, District Court No.2, Kancheepuram.

This Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020

Crl.M.P. No.836/2020

Nagaraj, Male, S/o Balan, No.2/190, Indira Gandhi Road, Naduveerapattu Village, Sriperumbudur taluk, Kanchipuram District...... Petitioner/Accused.

//Vs// State: Represented by The Inspector of Police, Somangalam Police Station, Cr.No.261/2020 .....Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came up before me through On line as well as whats App for hearing today which was filed by the counsels for the petitioner M/s M.P.Muguntharajan, E.Sridhar, R.Mahalakshmi and of Mr. K.Sampath, the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, upon perusing the entire records, having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court passed the following.

ORDER

1. This petition for bail filed by the counsel for the petitioner/ accused through online to release the petitioner on bail u/s 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the offence u/s 4(1)(a) 4(1-A) of TNP Act and he is in judicial custody from 21.04.2020 by the respondent police for possession of illict liquor which does not contains any poisonous substance, that as the properties had been seized the material portion of investigation would have been completed and hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

3. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner was in possession of illicit liquor , that he is in custody from 21.04.2020, that he is having no previous case, that the investigation has not been completed and hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. . . 4. Point for Consideration: . Whether the petition seeking bail is to be allowed or not? . is the question to be decided in this petition. . . 5. To the point: . It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was arrested by the respondent police for the offence u/s 4(1)(a) 4(1-A) of TNP Act and he is in judicial custody from 21.04.2020. It is the case of the prosecution that illicit liquor were said to have been seized from the petitioner which contain poisonous substance according to the prosecution agency during the period of lock down. Whether the contents found in the seized article contains poisonous substance or not is to be decided only after the receipt of the chemical report. Till such time the innocence of the petitioner can be taken as a prima facie case. The entire liquor were seized by the police and hence, the material portion of investigation would have been completed at this point of time. The petitioner is in custody from 21.04.2020 and hence, he would have realized his mistake/wrong if any committed by him. As the entire nation is facing lock down due to Covid 19 if the petitioner is allowed to kept inside the prison for a long period of time it would affect the family circumstances of the petitioner. The police official alone is the de facto complainant in this case and hence, the question of tampering the witness does not arise. The petitioner has not manufacturing the illicit arrack even according to the prosecution but he was in possession of illicit liquor. Considering the above stated circumstances and in the interest of justice this court is inclined to allow the petition and the point is decided accordingly. . . In the result, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on execution of his own bond for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The above accused shall surrender before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur on 08.06.2020 without fail and further he is directed to execute a fresh bond each for a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) along with two sureties of like sum each. . . //This order has been dictated by me to the Stenographer, typed by her in the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Court on this Tuesday the 5th day of May 2020.// . Sd/- J.Chandran District and Sessions Judge, . District and Sessions Court No.II, . Kancheepuram. . . Copy to: . . 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur . 2. The Inspector of Police, Somangalam Police Station . 3. The Public Prosecutor. 4. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Madurantakam .