LAWS(MAD)-2022-9-60

DIMOTHI Vs. STATE

Decided On September 22, 2022
Dimothi Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12/4/2022 for the offences punishable under Ss. 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 22(b), 22(c), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.76 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 11/4/2022, upon information received by the District Superintendent of Police and upon the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallore, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the respondent proceeded to the Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, near Kadambathur Railway Station. According to the information, some persons were selling ganja in the car between 8.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. at Rajiv Gandhi Nagar near Kadambathur Railway Station. The Sub-Inspector of Police after informing the instructions given by the Superintendent of Police to the respondent at 7.00 a.m., got permission over phone at 7.15 a.m. and recorded the receipt of information in general diary at 7.30 a.m., left the police station at 7.45 a.m. with his police parties and reached the spot at 8.00 a.m. On the identification given by the informant, they secured A1 to A4.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A3 in this case. He would also submit that the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the other accused were found in suspicious circumstances and that in search of a car belonging to one Rohan/A1 resulting in recovery of the contraband. Even as per the First Information Report, nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and since, he was found in the company of the other accused, he has been arrested. He would further submit that the main accused Rohan/A1 from whom the alleged contraband was recovered has been granted bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.18358 of 2022 on 26/8/2022 and as far as this case is concerned, the role of the petitioner is lesser than that of the said Rohan/A1, who has been granted bail by this Court. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.