Dismissed

Prakash v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC16 Oct 2020CRL OP/16469/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 CrPC for alleged offences under the NDPS Act. The petitioner claimed to be falsely implicated. The court refused bail citing the petitioner's involvement in similar continuous offences and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail was denied and the Criminal Original Petition was dismissed.

Prakash Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.10.2020 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTIC E A. D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.16469 of 2020

¶4

Prakash ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State Represented by,

¶7

The Inspector of Police,

¶8

Appakoodal Police Station,

¶9

Erode District.

¶10

(Cr.No.157 of 2020) ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Connection with the Crime No.157 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Deepanuday For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶13

(This case has been heard through video conference)

¶14

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in Crime No.157 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that the petitioner had illegally transported 1.200 kgs of Ganga in his two wheeler Bajaj Platina bearing Registration No. TN 93 A 7183 and on seeing the police left the bike and ran away. Hence, the complaint.

¶16

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

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner transported 1.200 kgs of Ganga in his two wheeler Bajaj Platina bearing Registration No. TN 93 A 7183. He would further submit that there is information that he is continuously involving similar offences. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶19

Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel and also the fact that he is continuously involving similar offences, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/16/10/2020 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 NO.I, BHAVANI, ERODE.

¶21

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, APPAKOODAL POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT. 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. CC to Mr.Deepanuday Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.16469/2020 Date :16/10/2020 MK:28/10/2020

¶22

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

Prakash v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

Selvam Vs State by

Raja@Andiyarpalayam Raja Vs State Rep by

C.Manikandan Vs State Rep by

Sabarinathan Vs the State Rep by

M. Amarnath Vs the State

Kanniyappan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by