Sanmugam v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Dated: 19/07/2023 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Sanmugam

...Petitioner/Accused No.3

Vs.

The State rep. by its Inspector of Police, NIBCID Dindigul Police Station, Dindigul District.

(CrimeNo.05 of 2022) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan,Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

PRAYER:- For Bail in Crime No.5 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER: The Court made the following order:- The petitioner/A3, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, on 30/03/2022 for the offences punishable under sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) and 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1989 in Crime No.05 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 1/4

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 30/03/2023, based on the secret information given by the informant, the respondent police along with the police party conducted vehicle check up on Vedasandur-Kkakathope Vilakku Pirivu Road, at that time, the petitioner along with others were found in possession of 215 kgs of Ganja.

3.Heard both sides.

4.This petition has been filed on medical ground. 5.A report was called for from the prison authorities to show the health condition of this petitioner. Medical report shows that now the present health condition of the petitioner is stable and he is doing and following the daily activities. So, the ground, on which this petition came to be filed is not believable. Apart from that, it is also submitted by the petitioner that except the confession statement of the co-accused, no other material has been collected during the course of investigation to implicate him. But all these grounds have been taken by the petitioner in earlier occasion also. After consideration the above said grounds the earlier petition was rejected. Huge quantity of 215 kgs of Ganja is involved in this case. It was also considered that the petitioner also travelling in the vehicle from where the above said contraband has been recovered. Whether this petitioner had knowledge about the availability of the contraband or not can be considered only during the course of 2/4

trial. No new ground has been made out by the petitioner. 6.So, I find no merit in this petition. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.

sd/- 19/07/2023 / TRUE COPY / /08/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

ER TO THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NIBCID DINDIGUL POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11705 of 2023 Date :19/07/2023 PKP/VRS/SAR- /08.08.2023/ 3P/4 C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 3/4

4/4