Mani @ Manikandan v. State By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.10.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No. 15231 of 2020
1. Mani @ Manikandan
2. Ambedth @ Ambedthkar
3. Suriya ... Petitioners Vs.
State by Inspector of Police, Thiruvallur Taluk Police Station, Thiruvallur District.
(Crime No.1677 of 2020) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.1677 of 2020, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thiruvallur Taluk Police Station, Thiruvallur District or on their appearance before the court.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Sudarsan For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B),25 and 29(1)of N.D.P.S.Act,1985 seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant one Dayanithi working as a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police station gave a complaint that on information from special report, he made a vehicle search near the Kakaloor Weighing Machine, at that time, the petitioner and other accused persons came in a two wheeler. On suspicion, the vehicle was intercepted by the complainant during which time that the petitioners ran away from the scene of occurrence and the respondent searched the vehicle and found that 1.100 kgs. of ganja was concealed in the two wheeler. Hence, the present complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently opposed stating that the petitioners are habitual offenders and involved in the business of selling ganja. He would submit that on specific information, during the defacto complainant's vehicle search on 19.09.2020, the petitioners along with other accused came in a two wheeler and on seeing the police, the petitioners have ran away from the scene of occurrence, leaving the vehicle and on search of vehicle, the respondent found in illegal concealment of 1.100 kgs. of ganja in the two wheeler. Hence, he has opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the learned counsels and the petitioners were found in possession of 1.100 kgs. of ganja, which is a huge quantity, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stand dismissed.
-sd/- 09/10/2020 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, NO.II, THIRUVALLUR 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLUR TALUK POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.
CC to M/S. N.SUDARSAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.15231/2020 Date :09/10/2020 RVR 15/10/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/