Dismissed

Ansar v. State Rep. by

Madras HC29 Aug 2024CRL OP/20564/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a bail petition filed by an accused charged with illegal possession of a commercial quantity of ganja under the NDPS Act. The Court found no change in circumstances and was not inclined to grant bail due to the gravity of the offence and the need for detailed investigation.

What did the court decide?

Bail to the petitioner was not granted; the Criminal Original Petition was dismissed.

Ansar Vs State Rep. by — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.20564 of 2024

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.20564 of 2024

¶3

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶4

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.05.2024, in Crime No.23 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 8(c), r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 25, 29(1) of NDPS Act, seeks bail.

¶5

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

¶6

this is the second petition and the earlier petition was dismissed by this Court in Crl.OP.No.15669 of 2024 dated 04.07.2024. He further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case, as if the petitioner along with other accused was found in possession of 106.400 kgs of ganja. He further submitted that the petitioner

¶7

is in no way connected with the alleged offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is suffering incarceration from 19.05.2024 and he is ready to abide any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶8

Page No.1/4

¶9

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

¶10

Crl.O.P.No.20564 of 2024

¶11

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner along with other accused was found to be in illegal possession of 106.400 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. He further submitted that A4 conspired with other accused and helped them to transport 106.400kgs of dry ganja which was purchased from Andhra Pradesh and transported to Tamil Nadu via container lorry for illegal sale. He also submitted that the the total contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity and that it attracts section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions required under Section 37 of NDPS Act. However, he vehemently opposed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

¶13

Taking into consideration the quantity of the contraband seized

¶14

from the petitioner is a commercial quantity, and it needs detailed investigation, and the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner and

¶15

Page No.2/4

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.20564 of 2024

¶18

also there is no change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant

¶19

bail to the petitioner.

¶20

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

¶21

29.08.2024

¶22

rri

¶23

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶24

Page No.3/4

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.20564 of 2024

¶27

rri

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.20564 of 2024

¶29

29.08.2024

¶30

Page No.4/4

¶31

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

Ansar v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ansar 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

R.R. Manjunatha Chetty, Vs Varalakshmi (Deceased)

C.Kumar Vs N.Anna Durai

P. Ahmedkutty Vs Forest Range Officer

Mohan S/O. Pk Vs Ayyanarappan(died)

Rc Gnanasundaram(Died) 1.SHANTHI W/O.Lakshmanan, Vs Rc Rajagopal Chettiar

C.Govindaraj (Died) 1.Suseela Vs K.Govindaraj (Died) 1.Sarasu