Dismissed

Deepa v. State Rep by

Madras HC29 Sept 2021CRL OP/18061/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act involving possession of 32 bottles of brandy, the High Court of Madras dismissed the application. The bench held that the petitioner had 18 similar pending cases and no change in circumstances, rejecting the claim of false implication.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; order to be carried into execution by police and jail administration.

Deepa Vs State Rep by — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Twenty Ninth day of September Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.18061 of 2021

¶7

DEEPA

¶8

[ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶9

¶10

STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UTHUKOTTAI POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT. CRIME NO. 509 OF 2021.

¶11

[ RESPONDENT ]

¶12

For Petitioner : M/S.S.ARUNKUMAR Advocate

¶13

For Respondent : MR. A.GOPINATH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶14

PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.07.2021 for the offences under Sections 4(i)(a) r/w4(1-A) of T.N.P. Act in Crime No.509 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was in possession of 32 botles each containing 180 ml brandy . Hence the complainant.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that there was 18 previous cases pending against the petitioner which are similar in nature. He further submits that earlier this Court dismissed the bail application for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.18061 of 2021 dated 29.09.2021. there is no change of circumstancesHence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶20

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

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and there are 18 previous cases pending against the petitioner and the previous bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court and there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶22

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶23

-sd/-

¶24

29/09/2021

¶25

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶26

TRUE COPY

¶27

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶28

¶29

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UTHUKOTTAI POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

¶30

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, PUZHAL CENTRAL JAIL FOR WOMEN, CHENNAI.

¶31

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶32

CC to M/S.S.ARUNKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges

CRL OP.18061/2021

Date :29/09/2021

INBA-12/10/2021

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

Deepa v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepa 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

Ravichandran Vs State Rep by

Kanchana Vs State Rep by

Saritha Vs the Inspector of Police

M.S.Palanivel, Vs the State Rep.by

B.Jayalakshmi Vs State Rep by

S.Veera Shanmugam Vs Iop All Women Ps Tirupur