Dismissed

Sankar@Panai Sankar v. State Rep. by

Madras HC3 Jun 2020CRL OP/6983/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought anticipatory bail for offences under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The petitioner had no representation. The additional public prosecutor opposed the plea citing the petitioner's antecedents, including three prior prohibition cases. The court, considering these antecedents, dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application for anticipatory bail was dismissed. The petition was quashed as not maintainable in the facts of the case.

Sankar@Panai Sankar Vs State Rep. by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.6983 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 03.06.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.6983 of 2020

¶7

K. Sankar @ Panai Sankar, .. Petitioner/Accused - 2 ..Vs.. State rep. by Inspector of Police Villupuram Town Police Station, Villupuram District. (Crime No.504 of 2019) .. Respondent / Complainant

¶8

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.504 of 2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Villupuram Town Police Station, Villupuram District.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kannan For Respondent : Mr.K.Prabakar, Addl. Public Prosecutor. O R D E R

¶10

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(a), 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, in Crime No.504 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in 1/3

¶12

1/3

¶13

Crl.O.P.No.6983 of 2020

¶14

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein and two

¶15

other accused was found in possession of 10 litres of ID arrack. Hence the case has been registered against the petitioner.

¶16

There is no representation for the petitioner.

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the

¶18

petitioner has six previous cases out of which three cases are prohibition cases.

¶19

Hence, he vehemently opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

It is seen that on the last occasion there was no appearance on

¶21

behalf of the petitioner and hence it was posted today. Even today there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶22

Taking into account, the antecedents of the petitioner, this Court

¶23

is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶24

03.06.2020

¶25

smv

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in 2/3

¶27

2/3

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.6983 of 2020

¶29

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

¶30

smv

¶31

To
1. Inspector of Police
Villupuram Town Police Station,
Villupuram District.
2. The Addl. Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.6983 of 2020

¶32

03.06.2020

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in 3/3

¶34

3/3

Sankar@Panai Sankar v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankar@Panai Sankar v. 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

Anbuselvan Vs State Rep by

Karthick Vs State Rep by

Venkatesan Vs State Rep. by Its

Naseer Ahmed Vs State Rep by

S.Mohamed Riyas Vs State Rep.by

Basappa Vs the State