Ranjith Kumar @ Katta Ranjith v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Thirtieth day of June Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.15066 of 2022 RANJITHKUMAR @ KATTA RANJITH [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, M-5, ENNORE POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.
CRIME NO.907 OF 2021.
For Petitioner : M/S.M.ILLIYAS Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.DAMODARAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b) (ii)(C) & 25 of NDPS Act, in Crime No.907 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, based on the secret information, the respondent police were involved in a vehicle check up near Athipattu Palam, Kathivakkam high road. At that time, One Karthikeyan/A1 in his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 05 BV 4947 was found in possession of 22 kgs of Ganja in a gunny bag without any valid license. In his confession statement, he stated that after getting money from his one of the co-accused Dhanasekar, A1 went to Andhra and purchased the Ganja. Further, the same is distributed to the other co-accused and the petitioner herein for retail sale. Hence the case.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and no way connected with the alleged offence. He would further submit that on the confession statement given by the co-accused, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is not yet completed and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is a possibility that he will tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation. He would further submit that twelve previous cases are pending against the petitioner and hence he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Taking into consideration the allegations and also the bad antecedent of the petitioner and the fact that the case is in the initial stage of the investigation and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 30/06/2022 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, M-5, ENNORE POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S.M.ILLIYAS Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.15066/2022 Date :30/06/2022 RW-07/07/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/