Muthukaruppan v. The Inspector Of Police

CRL OP(MD).No.9709 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06/10/2020 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP(MD).No.9709 of 2020 Muthukaruppan ...Petitioner/Accused No.4 Vs The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Police Station (NIB-CID) Dindigul District.

Crime No.10 of 2020 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rameshkumar Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.K.R.Bharathi Kannan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.10 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as A4, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in Crime No.10 of 2020, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 11.02.2020 at about 7.00 a.m the respondent had gone to routine vehicle check up near bus stop of Keezhmadurai, Bye Pass Road, Dindigul to Palani Road and at the time, one person is standing in the bus stop with big white polytheen bag and on enquiry, the above said person namely one Paulpandi, ran away from the spot and further the respondent police got him and found that he is in possession of 22 kgs of Ganja. Hence, the case has been registered.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

CRL OP(MD).No.9709 of 2020 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that only based on the confession given by A1, this petitioner's name was included in this case. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), on instructions, submitted that this petitioner is arrayed as A4. This petitioner and other accused persons are in possession of 22 kg of Ganja, which is more than the commercial quantity and he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner and other accused persons are in possession of 22 kg of Ganja, which is more than the commercial quantity, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. sd/- 06/10/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DINDIGUL POLICE STATION (NIB-CID) DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9709 of 2020 VSD Date :06/10/2020 TK/PN/SAR.2/12.10.2020/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2