Jayanthi v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Second day of November Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.21894 of 2021 JAYANTHI [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERODE SOUTH POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.224 OF 2021.

For Petitioner : M/S. A.P. SATHYAMURTHY Advocate For Respondent : MR. S.BALAJI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 in Cr.No.224 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 03.06.2021, the petitioner along with the other accused persons, who were working as a group involved in trafficking of narcotic substances. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner have not been implicated in the said offence. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner is habitual offender, who deal in trafficking narcotics and only on the basis of information, and the contraband, which is of commercial quantity has been seized from the petitioner and the other accused persons. He further submits that earlier this Court had dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner and other accused persons in Crl.O.P.Nos.9954, 9955, 9957, 9965, 9956, 9790, 10171, 10201, 10206, 10208 & 10203 of 2021 and this is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.

Taking into account the fact that the quantity of contraband seized from the petitioner is a commercial quantity and even much beyond the commercial quantity and and the earlier anticipatory bail petition was dismissed by this Court and there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. -sd/- 22/11/2021 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERODE SOUTH POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S. A.P. SATHYAMURTHY Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.21894/2021 Date :22/11/2021 RW 29/11/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/