Natarajan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Fourth day of November Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.21390 of 2015 NATARAJAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PROHIBITION AND EXCISE WING POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

CRIME NO. 507 OF 2015 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S P.T.RAMESH RAJA Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) 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 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (Transport) and Sections 468, 471 and 476 IPC in Crime No.507 of 2015, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 01.06.2015, while the defacto complainant was in surveillance along with his police party in Panapatti to Solavandhan road, near Sadayanpatti division, they found that the accused Nos.1 to 4 were shifting some packed liquor bottles from the Innova Car bearing registration No.TN 07 AV 7680. On enquiry, the accused persons confessed that 318 bottles of day and night Brandy and 972 bottles of SNJ brandy were purchased from Pondicherry and also they affixed a duplicate label for the purpose of selling the bottles in Tamil Nadu.

3.The case of the petitioner is that he is an innocent person and his name is not mentioned in the FIR and only as per the confession of the accused viz., A1 to A4 stating that the liquor bottles were transported from the house of the petitioner, the petitioner's name was implicated. The petitioner is the owner of the house and he is a native of Sengottai, from where the bottles were seized and A7 is the tenant. The petitioner is residing at Sengottai.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) submitted that already A1 and A2 were detained as 'Goondas' and A3 was granted anticipatory bail and A7 was granted bail.

5.From the materials, it is seen that the seizure was made on 01.06.2015 and thereafter, the petitioner was arrayed as accused based on the confession of the co-accused.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakkottai and on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously.

7. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

sd/- 24/11/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,NILAKOTTAI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,DINDIGUL 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE WING POLICE STATION,DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S P.T.RAMESH RAJA Advocate SR.No.67124

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.21390 of 2015 Date :24/11/2015 AA/SKS-RR/SAR-II/30.11.2015/2p-6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/