Dismissed

Pethammal v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC14 Jun 2017CRL OP(MD)/7001/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed the bail petition of Pethammal, the sole accused in a possession-based drug case. Citing Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the prima facie existence of a case despite procedural irregularities in FIR timing, the court refused release on bail.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition for bail was dismissed; the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

Pethammal Vs the Inspector of Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

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

¶2

Wednesday, the Fourteenth day of June Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Dr.Justice G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.7001 of 2017

¶6

PETHAMMAL ... PETITIONER / SOLE ACCUSED Vs

¶7

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VAITHEESWARAN KOIL POLICE STATION, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT, CRIME NO.15/2017

¶8

... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S.K.KUMARAVEL Advocate

¶10

For Respondent : MR.C.RAMESH, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

¶12

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶13

The petitioner herein/sole accused who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.01.2017 for the alleged offence under Section 8(c) read with 22(c) of NDPS Act in Crime No.15 of 2017 on the file of the respondent/Police, seeks bail.

¶14

2.The petitioner who was arrested on 15.01.2017 for the alleged possession of 600 grams of diazepam seeks bail on the ground that false case has been foisted against her by the respondent/Police alleging that she had been in possession of commercial quantity of diazepam violating the provisions of NDPS Act. The case is a false case which could be easily seen through the record of the Police. When the alleged seizure has been effected at 15.00 hours and petitioner was arrested vide arrest card, the Police has entered the crime number in the arrest card. Whereas, the case itself has been registered only at 18.30 hours. Further, the entry of crime number in the arrest card, arrest memo and mahazar falsify the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was found in possession of diazepam and arrested on 15.01.2017 at 3.00 p.m.

¶15

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed a detailed counter wherein, it is stated that this petitioner is a notorious drug pedlar having nearly 15 cases under the Prohibition Act and based on secret information, she was intercepted at Thirupangur main road. After complying all the mandatory conditions, she was searched https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and found in possession of 600 grams of diazepam which is a psychotropic substance prohibited under the Act and possessing of more than 500 grams of diazepam is a commercial quantity. Hence, bail cannot be granted to the petitioner in the light of restriction in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶16

4.It is pointed out by the respondent/Police in the counter that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner has to satisfy twin test namely, (i)reasonable ground to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and ii)he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. This petitioner who is a habitual offender under the Prohibition Act has propensity to commit the crime if released on bail. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

¶17

5.Perusal of the CD file indicates that the arrest card contains the crime number. The arrest was effected on 15.01.2017 at 15.00 hours whereas, FIR was registered on the same day at 18.30 hours. In normal course, if the FIR been registered later, in the documents prepared earlier to registration of FIR, there is no chance of incorporating the crime number. However, in this case, the crime number is found in the arrest card. But a close scrutiny of the arrest card also contains the time and day, hour of bringing the accused to the station and this clearly shows that the arrest card prepared after bringing the accused to the station. In such case, there can be no suspicion or doubt regarding mentioning of crime number in the arrest card.

¶18

6.Therefore, this Court finds that there is a prima facie case against this petitioner. Hence, in view of the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶19

sd/14/06/2017

¶20

/ TRUE COPY /

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶22

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶23

¶24

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VAITHEESWARAN KOIL POLICE STATION, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT,

¶25

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

¶26

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY

¶27

ORDER IN

¶28

CRL OP(MD) No.7001 of 2017

¶29

Date :14/06/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

SVA/KK/19.06.2017/SAR4/2P.4C

Pethammal v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pethammal v. the 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

Umaiorupagam Vs C.Vijayapandian

Venkatram Vs the Inspector of Police

Kannan, S/O.Alagarsamy, Vs the Inspector of Police

Kanagarathinammal (Died) Vs Spmrm. Muthiah Pillai

J.Jinu Solomon, Vs the State Rep. by

Sekar Vs the Inspector of Police