Arumugam v. State Rep By Its

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10/06/2019 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.RAJAMANICKAM CRL OP(MD). No.6900 of 2019

1. Arumugam @ Dokku Arumugam

2. Karbagam @ Kasthuri ... Petitioners/Accused No.2 & 3 Vs State Rep by Its, The Inspector of Police, Courtallam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.137 of 2019).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.M.Jegadeesh Pandian, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.V.Neelakandan, Additional Public Prosecutor.

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in crime No.137/2019 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C) r/w Section 20(b) (ii) (B) fo Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in Crime No.137 of 2019, seek anticipatory bail.

2. Heard both sides.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners are innocents and they have been falsely implicated in the above case. He further submitted that even as per the FIR, three persons were in joint possession of 2 Kgs of ganja and the said quantity comes within the category of intermediate quantity. He further submitted that already A1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and only based on the confession statement given by A1, the petitioners herein have been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

implicated in the above case. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent has submitted that already five similar type of cases are pending against the first petitioner and one similar type of case is pending against the second petitioner. He further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary. Hence, he strongly opposed this petition.

5.Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that already five cases of similar in nature are pending against the first petitioner and one similar type of case is pending against the second petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.In the result, this petition is dismissed.

sd/- 10/06/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, COURTALLAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.6900 of 2019 Date :10/06/2019 MS/PN/SAR-3/17.06.2019/2P.3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/