Rani v. The Inspector Of Police

CRL OP(MD)No.6384 of 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10.04.2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP(MD)No.6384 of 2023 Rani ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Nagamalai Pudukottai, Madurai District.

(Crime No.88 of 2022) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabakaran, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.88 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner /A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.03.2022 for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(B) of NDPS Act altered into Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 29 (i) of NDPS Act and Sections 353, 506(i) IPC in Crime No.88 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 15.03.2022, based on secret information, the police party went to the occurrence place. On seeing the police party, A3 escaped from the scene. When A2 and the petitioner herein tried to escape, the police apprehended them. However, they did not co-operate for search and also threatened them. Thereafter, they give consent to search. The petitioner was in illegal possession of 12000 grams of ganja and A2 was in illegal possession of 1000 grams of ganja. Hence, the case. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that under separate mahazar contraband was seized and it is only https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/2

CRL OP(MD)No.6384 of 2023 below commercial quantity. In fact, A1 was granted bail in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.11888 of 2022 on the ground that contraband was below commercial quantity. He would further submit that even according to the case of the prosecution, when the accused persons stood in front of house of the petitioner herein, they were found in possession of contraband, whereas in final report, they stated that contraband was seized from the house of A1. Therefore, he prayed for bail. 4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner is having 11 previous cases and vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available in the record.

6.It is seen that the petitioner and A2 were found in possession of 22 kgs of ganja. Though the contraband was seized separately, the petitioner and A2 were jointly found in constructive and conscious possession of contraband. In fact, another accused escaped from the scene of occurrence, after seeing the police party. That apart, the petitioner is having 11 previous cases and all the cases arising out of NDPS cases and for one case, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. The petitioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions as contemplated under Section 37 of NDPS Act. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

sd/- 10/04/2023 / TRUE COPY / /05/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

gns TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAGAMALAI PUDUKOTTAI POLICE STATION, NAGAMALAI PUDUKOTTAI, MADURAI DISTRICT.

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON (WOMEN), MADURAI DISTRICT. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.6384 of 2023 Date :10/04/2023 RS/VR/SAR-2(17.05.2023) 2P 4C https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/2