This court disposed of an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner faced charges under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act for illegal possession of arrack with prior pending cases. The court rejected the bail plea due to antecedents.
Anticipatory bail application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.10.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTIC E A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No. 16432 of 2020
Raja @ Andiyarpalayam Raja
Vs.
The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Villupuram West Police Station, Villupuram District. [Crime No. 1906 of 2020]
... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in Crime No. 1906 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Gopi Krishanan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1) (a), 4(1-A) of Tamilnadu Prohibition Act, in Crime No. 1906 of 2020, on the file of the respondent, seeks anticipatory bail.
2 The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 10 litres of illicit arrack in a polythene bag. Hence, the complaint.
3 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 10 litres of ID Arrack and that there are three previous cases pending against the petitioner. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
5 Taking into consideration of the facts and submissions made by the learned counsels and considering the previous antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
-sd/15/10/2020
This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned
TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT NO.I,
VILLUPURAM.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VILLUPURUM WEST POLICE STSTION,
VILLUPURAM
CC to M/S D.GOPI KRISHNAN Advocate on payment of necessary
charges
CRL OP.16432/2020
Date :15/10/2020
MK:28/10/2020
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who apprehends arrest in connection with illegal possession of illicit arrack considering his three pending previous cases.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Raja @ Andiyarpalayam Raja
The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Villupuram West Police Station, Villupuram District.
E A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
