BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Eighteenth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.14442 of 2011 ISLEEMA ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 Vs STATE REP BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DINDIGUL NAGAR NORTH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL IN CRIME NO. 1434 OF 2011 .. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. N.RANJITH Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.S.DURAI PANDIAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner was arrested on 14.10.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 8 ( c ) read with 20(b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.1434 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. 2.Heard Mr.N.Rajith, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is ranked as A-3 in the case and she is a woman and she is an innocent and she has no necessity to commit any offence as alleged in the complaint. He would further submit in his argument that the co-accused were released by the Trial Court in Cr.M.P.Nos.3593 and 3590 of 2011, dated 01.11.2011 and 31.10.2011 respectively and the petitioner is also on the same footing and therefore, she may be granted bail. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that it is true that the Trial Court has granted bail in Cr.M.P.Nos.3593 and 3590 of 2011, dated 01.11.2011 and 31.10.2011 respectively, but at the same time, the Trial Court has refused to grant bail to this petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.3594 of 2011. However if for any reason , this Court is inclined to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ grant bail to the petitioner, suitable orders may be passed for the secured presence of the petitioner. 5.COnsidering the submissions made on either side, this Court could see that the petitioner is ranked as A-3 in the case and the other accsued viz., A-1 and A-2 were already granted bail by the Trial Court in Cr.M.P.Nos.3593 and 3590 of 2011, dated 01.11.2011 and 31.10.2011 respectively. It is also seen that the petitioner is also standing on the same footing. The reasons purforth by the learned Trial Judge are to the effect that she belongs to Calcutta and therefore, she may abscond from the clutches of law and every proceedings will come to a standstill. As far as the eligibility of bail is concerned, the petitioner is certainly entitled to come out on bail because she is standing on the same footing and the apprehension of the learned Trial Judge could be averted by putting conditions. 6.Accordingly, the petitioner is direcetd to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with local sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special District Judge for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and on further conditon that the petitioner shall report before the concerned Court at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. sd/- 18/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1.THE SPECIAL DISTRICT JUDGE FOR EC AND NDPS ACT CASES MADURAI 2.THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE SUB-JAIL, NILAKOTTAI 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DINDIGUL NAGAR NORTH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S. N.RANJITH Advocate SR.No.40472 rl/6c – 21.11.2011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14442 of 2011 Date :18/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/