Ganesan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Dated: 25/11/2022 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)No.20341 of 2022 Ganesan :Petitioner/A1 Vs.
State through The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District.
(In Crime No.71 of 2022) : Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Mohamed Ansar.S For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. PRAYER:- C-32AB.For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.71 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order:- The petitioner, who is arrayed as A1 apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.71 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is the Inspector of Police working in the police station of the respondent. On 20/02/2022 at about 7.20 am, on secrete information from the police informer along with other team of police people, they were on surveillance near Senthurai Junction. At about 11.00 pm, a TATA Car bearing Registration No.TN-57-BF-3861 was proceedings from Thuvarangurichi to Sanarpatti. The above said vehicle was identified by the police informer. When that was intercepted, one of the accused escaped from that place. The driver was apprehended and disclosed his name as Gunasekaran and about the escaped person he told that he was one Alagu. After the above said disclosure, search was made and on that basis, the above said vehicle
was found in possession of 7 bags ganja weighing 20 kgs each. After that, as per the procedure, sampling was undertaken and the above said accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. On the basis of the confession statement, it came to light that one Ganeshan is the merchant of trading of ganga and he used to go to Andhra Pradesh and other places for the purpose of purchasing ganja. After purchasing the same, they used to sell the same through Arunpandi, Muthupandi, Amsupandi and Saravanan. So on the basis of the above said confession statement, the involvement of the other accused persons came to light.
3.Heard both sides.
4.Earlier application that was filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this court, considering the huge quantity of the contraband that has been recovered and CD file was also perused on the earlier occasion and came to know that the petitioner is continuously engaged in Ganja Trading and the vehicle, which was used for transporting the above said ganja has been hired by the petitioner.
5.It has been submitted that a wrong information has been given to this court that this petitioner hired the vehicle from one Ramasamy. According to him, there is no proof for the same. But reading of the statement of the above said Ramasamy shows that he is implicated this petitioner stating that he hired the vehicle. So the contention that the above said Ramasamy has given a statement that only one Gunasekaran has hired the vehicle and he has arrayed as A2 is not at all correct on record. 6.When serious allegation has been made, the contention on the part of the petitioner that only based upon the confession of the co-accused, this petitioner has been arrayed as an accused is not at all convincing. Absolutely, I find no change of circumstances and the person like the the petitioner must undergo the custodial interrogation to bring out the truth.
7.In the result, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
(G I J) 25.11.2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er
To, 1.The Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, Dindigul District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
G.ILANGOVAN ,J er Crl.OP(MD)No.20341 of 2022 25/11/2022