Punniyavathi v. The Sub-Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.09.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.15057 of 2020 Punniyavathi ... Petitioner Vs.

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PEW-Kottakuppam Police Station, Villupuram District.

Crime No.365 of 2020 ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner an anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.365 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravana Kumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 4(1) (aaa) and 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, in Crime No.365 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that when the respondent police along with other officials conducted raid in between Killiyanur to Kochimangalam road, they found that the petitioner and first accused transported 50 litres of ID arrack, 672 bottles of XXX Brandy and another 16 bottles of ID arrack. The petitioner ran away from the scene of occurrence, however the first accused was arrested. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that on the confession statement of the first accused only the petitioner's name was included in the FIR. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 50 litres of ID arrack, 672 bottles of XXX Brandy and another 16 bottles of ID arrack. He would further submit that the petitioner has got five previous cases of similar in nature against her. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner being a habitual offender and she has already been involved in five previous cases of similar in nature, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

-sd/- 25/09/2020 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VANUR 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

3 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE PEW-KOTTAKUPPAM POLICE STATION, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT.

CC to M/S.S.SARAVANA KUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.15057/2020 Date :25/09/2020 RVR 07/10/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/