Duraichi v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Sixth day of October Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.14365 of 2017 DURAICHI ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.4 Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOVILPATTI WEST POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.K.JEGAN 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, who is arrayed as accused No.4, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.391 of 2017, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.07.2017, at about 09.30 hours, on secret information, when the police party was on patrolling at Natarajapuram Cemetry, one Pothumani and another woman were tried to escape on seeing the police party and the police party trapped them and found that they were in possession of 2.750 kgms of Ganja and seized the same and arrested them. On their confession, the petitioner and other accused persons were implicated in this crime and the law enforcing agency registered the case against the accused persons.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted she has been falsely implicated in this case.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent submitted that though the petitioner arrayed as A4, all the accused persons were arrested and released on bail. He further submitted that three previous cases in similar nature pending against the petitioner and if the petitioner enlarged on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

anticipatory bail, she will tamper the evidence. Hence, he vehemently objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that three previous cases in similar nature pending against the petitioner and considering the gravity of the offence said to have been committed by the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 26/10/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOVILPATTI WEST POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI JAM/01/11.17/RR-BS/SAR 3/ 2P-3C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.14365 of 2017 Date :26/10/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/