Gowtham, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Eighteenth day of April Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice J.NISHA BANU CRL OP(MD) No.3411 of 2017 GOWTHAM ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NIBCID POLICE STATION, MADURAI.

CRIME NO.20 OF 2017 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.D.RAMESH KUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MRS.S.PRABHA, 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 A2, in crime No.20 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b) (ii) (c) and 27(A), 29(1) of NDPS Act and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) for the respondent/State. 3.The case of the prosecution is that on the basis of the secret information, the respondent police intercepted a vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 57 P 1699 and said to have seized 110 kilograms of Ganja from A1 and on the basis of the confession statement, the respondent police implicated the petitioner as A2. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. He would further submit that on the basis of the confession statement given by A1 only, the petitioner was roped in the case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner has played

vital role in the occurrence and there are reliable witnesses, material and documentary evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioner in the present case and the investigation is under process.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage and accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

sd/- 18/04/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NIBCID POLICE STATION, MADURAI.

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

ARUL CSL/BS/SAR-II/24.04.2017 : 2P/3C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.3411 of 2017 Date :18/04/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/