Dismissed

Murugan v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Apr 2015CRL OP(MD)/3207/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these petitions for anticipatory bail concerning NDPS charges involving possession of ganja, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court rejected the relief, observing that the petitioners lacked fixed residence and could not be guaranteed for trial, though it directed the trial court to conclude the inquiry within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications were dismissed; the trial is directed to be completed within 15 days from receipt of the order.

Murugan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Thursday, the Twenty Third day of April Two Thousand Fifteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

CRL OP(MD) Nos.3207 and 7506 of 2015

¶6

MURUGAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 IN CRL.OP(MD)NO.3207/2015

¶7

MUNIYANDI @ ETTU IDLY MUNIYANDI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IN CRL.OP(MD)NO.7506/2015

¶8

¶9

STATE REP BY

¶10

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶11

CUMBUM NORTH POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT CRIME NO.169 OF 2014 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN BOTH

¶12

THE PETITIONS

¶13

For Petitioner : M/S. B. PANDIARAJAN Advocate in Crl.OP(MD)No.3207/2015

¶14

M/S.S.MUNIYANDI, Advocate in Crl.OP(MD)No.7506/2015

¶15

For Respondent : M/S.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI,

¶16

Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) in both the Petitions

¶17

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶18

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶19

COMMON ORDER

¶20

The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 4 in Crime No.169 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police, were remanded to judicial custody on 20.05.2014 and 17.06.2014 respectively for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w. Section 20(b) (ii) (C) and Section 25 of NDPS Act, and hence, seek bail.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that the accused were found in possession of 100 kgs. of ganja.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first accused was arrested on 18.05.2014 at 12.15 hours and after

¶23

recording confession, the case was registered at 12.30 hours, but the confession contains the crime number. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that this creates a serious doubt over the case of the prosecution and he relies on the orders passed by this Court, in which this Court has granted bail to the accused.

¶24

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the petitioners did not have permanent residence, that the prosecution has examined all the witnesses and the case is posted on 24.04.2015 for examination of the Investigating Officer. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that if the accused are granted bail, they will not be available for trial and within 15 days the entire case can be completed.

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners and the same are dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent shall produce all the witnesses for the next hearing date without fail.

sd/-

23/04/2015

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶30

¶31

1.THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE OF PRINCIPAL SPECIAL COURT FOR EC AND NDPS ACT CASES, MADURAI

¶32

2.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶33

CUMBUM NORTH POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT

¶34

3.THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI

¶35

4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶36

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI RL/5 C- 28/4/2015

¶37

CRL OP(MD) Nos.3207 and 7506 of 2015

¶38

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

Murugan v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeevanandham Vs the Inspector of Police

S. Muthukumar Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Kumaresan Vs the Inspector of Police

G.Devi Vs the Inspector of Police

Natarajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Daniel Amaladoss Vs the Inspector of Police