Dismissed

T.Alagu v. State Rep by Its

Madras HC1 Sept 2020CRL OP/13405/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioners were accused of possessing 1.3 kg of heroin. The judge declined the bail application primarily due to the petitioners' substantial history of previous criminal cases, which were detailed in the order.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioners due to their antecedents.

T.Alagu Vs State Rep by Its — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :01.09.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTIC E A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.13405 of 2020

¶6

T. Alagu

¶7

T. Sardar

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Harur Police Station, Dharmapuri District. Crime No.1360 of 2020 ...Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to grant Anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the event of their arrest in Crime No.1360 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr. J. Pradeep

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.M. Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶14

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶15

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences publishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.1360 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners were found in possession of in possession of 1.3 kg of Kanja and A1 in this case was arrested. Hence the complaint.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Based on the confession made by the arrested accused, the petitioners and other accused were added in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners

¶18

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners are found in possession of 1.3 kg of Kanja. As far as the first petitioner has nine previous case and the second petitioner has three previous case and the details are given below:

¶19

First petitioner/A2:

¶20

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

¶21

Harur PS.Cr.No.587/2005 under Section 392 IPC.

¶22

Pr patty PS Cr.No.312/2007 under Section 379 IPC.

¶23

Harur PS Cr.No.505/2007 under Section 307, 323, 324 IPC.

¶24

Harur PS Cr.No.859/2007 under Section 147, 148, 307, 304, 341 IPC.

¶25

Harur PS Cr.No.1105/2007 under Section 307, 394 IPC.

¶26

Harur PS Cr.No.682/2007 under Section 147,148,294(b),323,324 IPC.

¶27

Harur PS Cr.No. 1042/2011 under Section 379 IPC.

¶28

Harur PS. Cr.No.13/2014 under Section 294(b),323,355, 506(i) IPC.

¶29

Harur PS Cr.No.236/2019 under Section 151Cr.P.C.r/w7(1)(a)CLA Act.

¶30

Abstract on A1 – Alagu Sl.N Dacoity Robbery 307 IPC Hurt Theft 355 IPC CLA Act o. 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1

¶31

Second Petitioner/A3:

¶32

Harur P.S.Cr.No.354/2019 under Section 20(b)(11)(A) NDPS Act, 1985 2. Harur P.S.Cr.No.639/2020 under Section 4(i)(a) r/w 4(1-A) TNP Act.

¶33

Harur P.S.Cr.No.899/2020 under Section 4(i)(a) r/w 4(1-A) TNP Act.

¶34

Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel since the first petitioner has nine previous case and the second petitioner has three previous, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶35

-sd/-

¶36

01/09/2020

¶37

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY

¶38

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

1 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶42

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARUR POLICE STATION, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT.

¶43

CC to M/S.J.PRADEEP Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶44

CRL OP.13405/2020
Date :01/09/2020
RVR 22/09/2020

¶45

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

T.Alagu v. State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Alagu v. State Rep by Its

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

R.Suresh Vs State Rep by

Awel Muktor Shifa Vs State Rep. by Its

K.Muthu Vs State Rep.by

P.Roja Vs State Rep.by

Murali Vs State Rep.by

Vijayakumar Vs the State Rep. by