Deepa v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24 .06.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.Nos.9043 &9079 of 2020 Deepa (aged 21) W/o Seethupathy No.1/160,Manthai Veli Street, Tajpura Post,Vellore District ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9043 of 2020 Seethupathy @ Sethupathi (aged 30) S/o Govindan No.69,Samuthiruam Colony, Thiruvannamalai District, ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9079 of 2020 Vs.

State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

Cr. No.99 of 2020 .. Respondent in both Crl.O.Ps Common Prayer : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners in the event of their arrest by granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.99 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner in both Crl.O.Ps : Mr. M.Manivelan For Respondent in both Crl.O.Ps : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON ORDER The petitioners/A3&A4 who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No.99 of 2020, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with other accused persons were found possession of 2.200 gms. of Ganja. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are totally four accused. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9043 of 2020 is the daughter-in-law of the 1st accused and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9079 of 2020 is the son of the 1st accused and they have been arrayed as A3 and A4. They were working as Mason in Trippur. Even, according to the prosecution, nothing has been recovered from the petitioners. Since, they

are relatives of the 1st accused and based on his confession statement, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he seek anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that insofar as the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9079 of 2020 is concerned, he is the son of the 1st accused and he has involved in four previous cases similar in nature out of which, three are prohibition offences and one under the NDPS Act case and that his family members are also involved in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners/A3 and A4 have have specific overt-act in this crime. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners.

5. It is seen that the petitioners/A3 & A4 are wife and husband and that they are the daughter-in-law and son of the 1st accused and the petitioners have actively participated in this crime along with their family members. It is also seen that there are four previous cases against the petitioner/A4 in Crl.O.P.No.9079 of 2020.

6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, these petitions stand dismissed.

24.06.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order vsn

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvannamalai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J vsn Crl.O.P.Nos.9043 & 9079 of 2020 24.06.2020