Dismissed

Attack Vijay v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC14 Jul 2022CRL OP(MD)/7490/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the petitioner, a co-accused in a narcotics offense with a history of two murder convictions, sought release. The court held that his antecedents barred bail under the NDPS Act despite the delay in trial. However, the trial was directed to be completed within five months, with a condition that the petitioner may approach the court again if time lapses.

What did the court decide?

Sentencing directions for the trial court to complete the trial within five months; liberty to approach the court for bail if the time limit is not met.

Attack Vijay Vs The Inspector of Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.OP(MD)No.7490 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Dated: 14/07/2022 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)No.7490 of 2022

¶3

Attack Vijay ... Petitioner/Accused No.9

¶4

Vs .

¶5

State through The Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai District. Crime No.1623 of 2020 ... Respondent/Complainant

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Priscilla Jancy, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶7

PETITION FOR BAIL under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C

¶8

PRAYER :-

¶9

For Bail in Crime No.1623 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶10

ORDER : The Court made the following order:-

¶11

The petitioner, who is arrayed as A9 was arrested, on 22/10/2020 and remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offences punishable under sections 8(c) r/w 20(b),(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.1623 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶12

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 15/06/2020 at about 8.30 hours, on a tip off, the police team went to the place of occurrence and looking for the accused persons. At that time, they found the accused persons coming in the bike bearing registration No.TN-59-CC-0749. They were enquired and searched. On search, they were found in possession of 24 kgs of Ganja. The accused persons were arrested on the spot itself and later, remanded to custody.

¶13

3.Heard both sides.

¶14

4.The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody, on 22/11/2020. Perusal of the case records shows that on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused, this petitioner's involvement came to light and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/3

¶17

Crl.OP(MD)No.7490 of 2022

¶18

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even though the petitioner is having criminal cases under various provisions of Indian Penal Code, so far as this case is concerned, it is purely a false case, registered on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused. He has not involved in similar nature offence in the previous occasion.

¶19

6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is having 9 cases, involved mostly under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code viz., under sections 302, 387 and 392 IPC etc. Among 9 cases, he hs involved in two murder cases.

¶20

7.It is seen that the petitioner is a habitual offender having two murder cases in his credit. There is no guarantee that he will not commit any crime, if he is released on bail. Since section 37 of the NPDS Act must be strictly complied, the antecedent of the petitioner does not show that he will correct himself, if he is released on bail. Even though he is not involved in similar cases in the previous occasion, the bad antecedent of the petitioner is sufficient enough to deny the bail.

¶21

8.It is seen that the case is of the year 2020 and the petitioner is in custody for more than 300 days and the trial has not started so far. So, there shall a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial process and complete the same, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the trial could not be completed within the time stipulated by this court, the petitioner can approach the concerned court seeking bail.

¶22

9.With the above said direction, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.

¶23

/07/2022

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶25

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

2/3

¶28

Crl.OP(MD)No.7490 of 2022

¶29

¶30

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AVANIYAPURAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI.

¶31

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL, MADURAI.

¶32

3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶33

COPY TO

¶34

THE REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL), MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶35

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.7490 of 2022 Date :14/07/2022 RS/PN/SAR.1 (20.07.2022) 3P-5C

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

3/3

Attack Vijay v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Attack Vijay v. The Inspector of Police

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

Titus Samuel Vs The Inspector of Police

L.Rajeshkumar Vs The Commissioner of Police

Naveenatha Krishnan Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Udhayakumar Vs The Inspector of Police

D.Sakthivel Vs The Inspector of Police

Manikandan Vs The Inspector of Police