1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Dated: 01/09/2022

PRESENT

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN

Crl.OP(MD)Nos.12823 and 13254 of 2022

Ayyakutti

... Petitioner/Accused No.4

(in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12823/2022)

Paramasivan @ Samiyar Murugan

... Petitioner/Accused No.3

(in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13254/2022)

Vs.

State rep.by

The Inspector of Police,

Murappanadu Police Station,

Thoothukudi District.

(Crime No.134 of 2022)

... Respondent/Complainant

(in both Petitions)

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Angusamy, Advocate

(in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12823/2022)

: Mr.R.Aravind Raj, Advocate

(in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13254/2022)

For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy

Government Advocate(Criminal side)

(in both Petitions)

PETITIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C

PRAYER :-

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.134 of 2022 on the file of

the Respondent Police.

COMMON ORDER : The Court made the following order:-

The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused persons

apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the

offences punishable under section 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act,

in Crime No.134 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek

anticipatory bail.

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

2

2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant

is the Inspector of Police Morappanadu along with team of police men

were on routine vehicle check up. On 05/07/2022 at about 04.00 pm,

they intercepted 2 two wheelers. On suspension, search was made and

four persons were available. Out of the four persons, two persons

escaped and two persons have been apprehended. They disclosed their

name as Seetharaman and Rakesh. On search, they were found in

possession of 1.96 kgs of ganja and subsequent sampling was

undertaken as per the rules and procedure. They have been arrested

and remanded to custody and the petitioners were arrayed as A3 and

A4.

3.These petitions have been filed on the ground that only two

persons have been apprehended on the spot and A4 is not at all

present in the place of occurrence. He is the man working in Muthoot

Micro Finance Limited. To the possession, he was made against A1 and

A2 cannot be stated to be the conscious and joint possession.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit

that against A1, several cases are pending and so far as the

petitioners are concerned, no previous case is pending.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A4 has also

produced the service certificate showing that he is working in

Muthoot Micro Finance Limited and also produced a certificate

showing that the above said accused Ayyakutti is working as Branch

Relation Manager. How he has been implicated in this matter and the

call details of this petitioner have been collected. Because of the

call details, he has been arrayed as an accused.

6.Considering the fact that the petitioners are not involved in

similar cases on the previous occasion and no bad antecedent is also

reported against them and similarly placed persons have also been

granted regular bail namely A1 and A2, this court is inclined to

enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail

with certain

conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released

on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the

learned Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and on each of

them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand

only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of

the learned Judge concerned and the petitioners shall appear before

the respondent police daily at 10.00 am until further orders. The

petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section

438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. The petitioners shall appear before the

concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on

which the order c