BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty First day of January Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice C.T.SELVAM CRL OP(MD) No.706 of 2011 K.AYYACHAMY ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs INSPECTOR OF POLICE PULITHIPATTY POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DIST IN CR.NO. 14/10 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. K.P.S.PALANIVEL RAJAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.RAJENDRAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A.1 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20 (a) (i) and (ii) (B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act in Crime No.14/10, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that pursuant to the information heard from the Village Administrative Officer/the de-facto complainant, the prosecution party had gone to Kanapatti Village at about 18.05p.m. on 25.10.2010 and cultivation of Ganja to an extent of 3 acres of land was found. When the crop was being destroyed, the second accused came out of the shrubs and was nabbed by the respondent. The Statement under Section 6 of the N.D.P.S. Act was recorded from him and he was arrested. In such statement, the second accused had informed the petitioner to be the land owner. 3. The Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 4. Earlier, the petition for anticipatory bail moved in Crl.O.P.No.12800 of 2010 has been dismissed by this Court on 06.01.2011. The change of circumstances, now sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the second accused had retracted his confession statement on 16.11.2010 and that this aspect had not been received consideration in earlier application for anticipatory bail which is dismissed. The matter in Crl.O.P.No.12800 of 2010 was posted before the concerned Judge on 11.01.2011, thereupon the following order was passed : "3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that this Court while passing the order, dated 06.01.2011, refused the anticipatory bail to the petitioner and had observed that the petitioner was the owner of the land in which the contraband viz., ganja has been grown. He would further submit in his argument that the case of the petitioner is that the said land are not standing in the name of the petitioner and it stands in the name of other persons and it is not belonging to the petitioner and he has no connection with the growing of the contraband viz., ganja. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit in his argument that the denial of the ownership has not been made in the petition itself. However, she leaves the matter to the Court for passing suitable orders. 5.Considering the submissions made on both sides, this Court could see that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is recorded in this order only." 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would now submit that pursuant to the retraction of the confession made by the second accused and the present Investigating Officer had filed a report informing that the confession of the second accused implicating A.3 and A.4 in the case was found to be false, therefore such persons may be deleted from the array of accused. But three others were to be arrayed as A.3 to A.5. Thus, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no material to show that the land in which Ganja was cultivated belonged to the petitioner, except the partisan certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer/the de-facto complainant and the confession of the second accused. The very certificate of the Village Administrative Officer informed the various survey fields as belonging to other persons and the addition in the certificate that such fields went by the name 'Circle Ayyasamy garden' has been made only towards falsely implicating the petitioner. 6. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) on the above submissions. 7. This Court is of the view that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have to be raised in the course of trial. Apparently, the reference to the words Circle is meant to inform the person was a 'Circle Inspector'. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) states that this petitioner indeed has retired as an Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is to be stated that A.2, in the course of Section 67 statement, had informed the involvement of this petitioner. What effect the subsequent retraction of such statement has is a matter to be decided by the trial Court. 8. Under these circumstances, we are not able to arrive at a finding that no prima facie case against the petitioner stands made out. For such reason, this petition shall stand dismissed. sd/- 21/01/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. INSPECTOR OF POLICE PULITHIPATTY POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DIST 2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. K.P.S.PALANIVEL RAJAN Advocate SR.No.2463 SR : 24.01.2011 : 2p/4c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.706 of 2011 Date :21/01/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/