This Court dismissed the petitioner's third anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. Findings noted that the petitioner was involved in a serious offence (illegal possession of narcotics) and there was no change in circumstances compared to the earlier dismissed applications.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
Crl.O.P.No.8338 of 2021
S.Arumugam ... Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by ... Respondent
The Inspector of Police,
Kasimedu Police Station,
Chennai.
(Crime No.2239 of 2020)
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
the event of his arrest in Crime No.2239 of 2020 pending
investigation on the file of the Respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Dineshkumar
For Respondent : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
G.A.(Crl.Side)
ORDER
(The case has been heard through video conference)
This is the third anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police in connection with a case registered in Crime No.2239 of 2020, for the alleged offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b)ii(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 and Section 120-B of IPC.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other accused persons was found in illegal possession of 4 kgs of Ganja, hence the crime was registered.
3. Earlier, this Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner on 08.03.2021, considering the fact that the petitioner was involved in very serious offence and there is no change in circumstances.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case and that this is the third anticipatory bail https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ application.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) vehemently opposed the granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner along with other accused persons was found in illegal possession of 4 kgs of Ganga. He further submitted that the earlier anticipatory bail application moved by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 08.03.2021, in Crl.O.P.No.4485 of 2021. He further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.
6. Hear both sides.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the petitioner was involved in a very serious offence and that there is no change of circumstances in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/07/06/2021 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 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NO.XVI, GEORGE TOWN, CHENNAI. 2 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASIMEDU POLICE STATION, CHENNAI. CC to M/S.R.DINESHKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.8338/2021 Date :07/06/2021 TA-28/06/2021
1 issue framed by the court
Whether mercantile anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in the third application considering it is a serious offence and no circumstance has changed.
S. Arumugam
State represented by Inspector of Police, Kasimedu Police Station
V. Bharithidasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
