Jeyakumar v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 29/05/2020 PRESENT The Hon`ble Dr.Justice G.JAYACHANDRAN Jeyakumar ... Petitioner/Accused NO.4 Vs The state Rep By The Inspector of Police, Pew, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.
(Crime.No.437 of 2020).
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s K.Gokul, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.S.Chandrasekar, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime.No. 437 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police ORDER : The Court made the following order :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
2. The petitioner apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 4(1) (a), 4(1)(i) & 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 in Crime No.437 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
3.The case against the petitioner is that he along with three others were found in possession of IMFL during the lockdown period with an intention to sale it to the public, contrary to the lockdown instructions. On seeing police party, this petitioner has fleded away from the place of occurrence. Three persons were arrested and MGM orange Votka-180 ML- 5 bottles Express Special Brandy-180ML-10 1/3
bottles Vorion No.1 Brandy - 90ML - 8 bottles (partly opened)Vorion No.1 Brandy-180 ML- 2 botteles (partly opened) were seized. From the statement given by the co-accused, this petitioner been shown as A4 and absconding.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein was shown as sole accused and arrested in other case registered in crime no.455 of 2020 on the file of the Sivakasi Town Police Station for the similar offence and he was released on bail on 30.04.2020. While so for similar allegation, the present case has been registered by PEW Police Station, Srivilliputhur in Crime No.437 of 2020, as if this petitioner was present at the scene of occurrence when IMFL were seized from the accused nos.1 to 3. 5.The learned counsel would submit that Seciton 4(1)(a) of Prohibition Act will not get attracted in the case of the petitioner, since he was not in possession of any liquor at the time allegedly occurrence.
Further he would submit that on the very same day, two cases were registered against this petitioner by two different agencies, just to wreck vengeance against him. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the recreation club and he is nothing to do with the alleged crime. 6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that this petitioner is running a recreation club. During the lockdown period he arranged to sale IMFL with the help of his associates, who are A1 to A3 in crime No.437 of 2020. The petitioner on seeing the patrol party, abandoned the liquor bottles and ran away. The patrol party was able to apprehend other accused. Since huge quantity of liquor been illegally sold by this petitioner during lockdown period, this matter has to be probed.
Unless this petitioner is taken into judicial custody, it is difficult for the prosecution to proceed with the investigation.
7.Considering the serious objections, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. In view of the grave violation of Prohibition Act during lockdown period. Hence, this criminal original petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed.
sd/- 29/05/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
2/3
Note: Due to lockdown on account of COVID-19, this order copy may be treated as true copy.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PEW, SRIVILLIPUTHUR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
2 THE ADDITONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.5518 of 2020 Date :29/05/2020 PD/JC/SAR 2/01.06.2020/3P/3C 3/3