Munniammal v. The State Rep By

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

The Petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w.20(b)(II)(c) of NDPS Act in Crime No.217 of 2013 seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 27.10.2013 at about 00.45 hours, when the Respondent Police conducted vehicle checkup, A1 came in a two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN 29 AU 8247 and found 2 kgs of Ganja with him and seized the same. On the confession statement of A1, the Petitioner along with others were arrayed as accused in the FIR and 44 kgs of Ganja was seized from the house of the Accused. Hence the complaint. 3.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that there is no materials available to connect the Petitioner with the alleged offence. A1, A2 & A4 were already arrested and released on bail by the Special Court for NDPS Act, Salem. The Petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. Hence, the learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the Respondent would submit that totally 46 kgs of Ganga was seized from the Accused. A1 is the Son, A2 is the Father and the present Petitioner A3 is the Mother, who 1/ 3

already absconded. He vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and the fact that the Petitioner along with other accused was found in possession of contraband, which is a commercial quantity viz., 46 kgs of Ganja, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

31.08.2023 sai 2/ 3

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

sai 31.08.2023 3/ 3