Dismissed

P.Muthulingam v. the State Rep by

Madras HC4 Nov 2020CRL OP/17016/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court of Madras dismissed a criminal original petition for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, accused of possessing banned tobacco products, claimed innocence. The Court rejected the plea noting the petitioner's record of six prior cases, including two similar pending ones and two previously dismissed bail applications. Disposition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed.

P.Muthulingam Vs the State Rep by — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.11.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTIC E A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.OP.No.17016 of 2020

¶5

P. Muthulingam ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State rep.by, The Inspector of Police , Thiruvalam Police Station, Vellore District. Crime No.141 of 2020

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.141 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. D. Arun

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R (This case has been heard through video conference)

¶13

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections (7(5), 20(2) under the Cigarettee and other TOBACCO products Act, 2003 r/w 328 of IPC in Crime No.141 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶14

2.The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that the petitioner was in possession of 700 Kgs of banned Toabacco products. Hence, the complaint.

¶15

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶16

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are previous cases pending against the petitioner out of which 2 cases are similar in nature. He would further submit this is the 3^rd Anticipatory Bail Application and the earlier two petitions were dismissed by this Court. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of Anticipatory bail to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner.

¶17

5.Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the above submission so made by the Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has 6 previous cases to his credit, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶18

-sd/-
04/11/2020
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,
KATPADI.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THIRUVALAM POLICE STATION,
VELLORE DISTRICT
CC to M/S. R.KANNAN Advocate on payment of necessary
charges
CRL OP.17016/2020
Date :04/11/2020
MK:19/11/2020

¶19

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

P.Muthulingam v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Muthulingam v. the State Rep by

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

Sridevi Vs State

A.Shanmugam, Sole Accused Vs the State Rep.by

Jeeva Vs State Rep.by

Saravanan Vs the State Rep by

Santhosh Vs State Rep.by

Mohan @ Kutty Mohan Vs the State Rep by