Dismissed

B.Ramu v. the State Rep by

Madras HC15 Dec 2021CRL OP/24601/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a Criminal Original Petition for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, facing prosecution under the NDPS Act for possession of ganja, sought bail. The Court, citing the gravity of the offence and risk of absconding, refused to grant anticipatory bail. However, the disposal of the petition does not affect the underlying trial as it is a special leave to appeal petition.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail petition dismissed; petitioner not granted bail.

B.Ramu Vs the State Rep by — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Fifteenth day of December Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.24601 of 2021

¶7

B.RAMU [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

THE STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERODE TALUK POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT. CR NO.235/2021.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.D.KRISHNAMOORTHY Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR.N.S.SUGANTHAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶12

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 29(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 in Crime No.235 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that on 23.05.2021 the respondent police on an information inspected the house of A1 and A2 and found A1 and A2 are in possession of 232-1/2 kg of ganja in their house and arrested and remanded to the judicial custody on the same day. Hence the complaint.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶17

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner seized near about 232-1/2 kg of Ganja was recovered and he is also one of the accused involved in the offence. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

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

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the gravity of the nature, if bail granted the petitioner is absconding, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶21

-sd/-

¶22

15/12/2021

¶23

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

¶24

TRUE COPY

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)

¶26

High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶27

¶28

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERODE TALUK POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT.

¶29

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶30

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

CRL OP.24601/2021

Date :15/12/2021

TA-28/12/2021

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

B.Ramu v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Ramu 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

Chandhiramoorthy Vs the State Rep by

Khaleelullah Vs State Rep by

Sathiyan Vs State Rep by

Padinjaraveetil Ravindran @ K. Ravindran Vs the State by

Nandha Kumar Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by

Ponnappan Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by