Veri Prathap @ Prathap v. The State Rep By Its

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J., The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) r/w 8(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 77 of Juvenine Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in Crime No.79 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on receiving a secret information, the respondent Police conducted a search, wherein they found that the petitioner and other accused were found to be in illegal possession of contraband substance of 60 grams of Ganja. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is the second anticipatory bail application and that the earlier anticipatory bail application was dismissed by this Court on 04.06.2024. He would

further submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and only based on the confession statement of A1, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner and other accused were found to be in illegal possession of contraband substance of 60 grams of Ganja. He would further submit that the petitioner is having 7 previous cases registered against him out of which, one case of similar nature including one 302 case. He further submitted that if the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail, he would tamper the witnesses Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate

(Crl.Side) and also the fact that the petitioner is having 7 previous cases registered against him and on considering the gravity of the offence, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

25.07.2024 ssi

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J., ssi 25.07.2024