Vimal v. State Rep by
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court rejected a third petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding charges under the NDPS Act for transporting 112 kg of ganja, noting the commercial quantity and lack of changed circumstances.
What did the court decide?
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed; court not inclined to grant bail.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS ( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Tuesday, the Third day of August Two Thousand Twenty One
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.13253 of 2021
M.VIMAL [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]
Vs
STATE REP BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NIB-CID-VILLUPURAM POLICE STATION, VILLUPURAM, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT. CR NO.28/2020.
For Petitioner : M/S.R.SANTHANAM Advocate
For Respondent : MR. A.GOPINATH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who is accused of transporting ganja in a commercial quantity.
Whether there has been any material change of circumstances justifying the grant of anticipatory bail in a third application for N-DRugs Act offences.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M. VIMAL
- respondent
STATE
Coram
M.DHANDAPANI
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court