High Court · 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 19/03/2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVELCRL OP (MD) No.327 of 2025Sivaneshwaran,S/o.Deivam,D.No.64/A/3,Gurankumayan Street,Uthamapalayam, Cumbum,Theni District. ... Petitioner/Accused No.3 VsThe State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by the Inspector of Police,S.S.Colony Police Station,Madurai.Crime No.227/2024 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeya Aron Raja, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis PRAYER :-To release the petitioner/Accused No.3 on bail in C.C.No.395/2024 on the fileof I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai in connection with CrimeNo.227/2024 on the file of the respondent-police.ORDER : The Court made the following order :-This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 06.01.2025under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying togrant bail.2. The petitioner/Accused No.3 was arrested and remanded to judicial custodyon 15.05.2024. The petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.395 of 2024 on the file of thelearned I Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai for the offencespunishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, inconnection with Crime No.227 of 2024 on the file of the respondent-police.3. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.05.2024, at about 18.50 hours, basedon secret information received, the respondent-police were conducting a vehiclecheck-up near Viratipathu Union Office, Madurai, on Kalavasal to Theni Main Road.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis At that time, the police found that Accused No.1 was in possession of 1.600 kgs ofganja in a Ford Aspire car bearing Registration No. TN-58-AL-9513. The respondent-police arrested Accused No.1 and seized the contraband. Based on the confession ofAccused No.1, on 15.05.2024, the petitioner/A3 was arrested. Following the same, onthe same day, based on the information given by the petitioner/A3, A4 and A5 werearrested, and the respondent-police seized 13.500 kgs of ganja from them. Followingthe same, on 18.05.2024, near the entrance of the Omni Bus Stand, Mattuthavani, A6,A7 & A8 were arrested, and 8.500 kgs of ganja was seized from A6 and A7. Hence,the case.4. Mr.J.Jeyaaron Raja, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that thepetitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence and that a false case has beenfoisted against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has been injudicial custody from 15.05.2024 and is ready to abide by any conditions that may beimposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for granting bail to the petitioner.5. Per contra, Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Additional Public Prosecutorappearing for the respondent-police, submits that in this case, 1.500 kgs of ganja wasseized from the Accused No.1 on 02.05.2024, 13.500 kgs of ganja was seized from3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 on 15.05.2024 and 8.500 kgs of ganja was seized from AccusedNos.6 and 7 on 18.05.2024. He further submits that there is one previous case pendingagainst the petitioner, which is similar in nature. He further submits that there was amoney transaction of Rs.85,500/- between Accused No.2 and the petitioner/A3. Healso submits that since the petitioner and the other accused persons purchased thecontraband with a common intention to sell it illegally and earn money and all therecoveries and seizures arose out of the same course of events, the recovery of ganjafrom the other accused persons should be taken into account while deciding whetherthe contraband constitutes a commercial quantity or not, and that the totalcontraband seized from all the accused persons comes within the category ofcommercial quantity. Further, he submits that the rigors stated in Section 37 of theNDPS Act would be applicable to this case. He relies upon the judgment of theHon'ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, reported in(2022) 18 SCC 374. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor therefore prays todismiss this Criminal Original Petition.6. This Court has considered the submission made on either side. 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7. A bare perusal of the FIR would show that on 02.05.2024, at about18.50 hours, the respondent-police intercepted the Ford Aspire car of A1 and seized1.600 kgs of ganja from him, which is admittedly an intermediate quantity. A perusalof the Final Report filed by the respondent-police and the other records would showthat on 15.05.2024, i.e., 13 days after the first seizure, the respondent-police arrestedthe petitioner/A3. At that time, no contraband was recovered from the petitioner/A3.Based on the information given by the petitioner/A3, the respondent-policeproceeded to arrest A4 and A5. Thereafter, the respondent-police arrested A4 and A5and recovered 13.500 kgs of ganja from them. Subsequently, on 18.05.2024, therespondent-police arrested A6 to A8 and recovered 8.500 kgs of ganja from A6 andA7.8. The submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that theprevious and further recoveries of ganja from the co-accused persons should be takeninto account while deciding whether the contraband constitutes a commercialquantity or not. This Court is not inclined to accept the above submission for thereason that the seizures were not made at the same time, particularly when nocontraband was recovered at the time of arrest of the petitioner/A3. Hence,5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis this Court is of the view that even though the case of the prosecution is that on18.05.2024, 13.500 kgs. of ganja was recovered from the petitioner/A3, A4 and A5, thequantity of contraband seized from them is intermediate, and the rigors stated inSection 37 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable to the case. To be noted, theabove view is recorded only for the purpose of deciding the bail petition. The aboveview, in any way, would not cause any prejudice to the rights of the prosecution inestablishing the case during the trial. 9. Considering the above, and also considering the facts that the petitioner haspermanent residence, and therefore, there is less possibility of absconding, and with aview to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to reform himself, this Court isinclined to grant an order of bail to the petitioner, however, subject to the followingconditions:(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty FiveThousand only) along with two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.25,000/- (RupeesTwenty Five Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned I Additional SpecialJudge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai;6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in theApplication for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules ofPractice, 2019']. The learned I Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Maduraishall obtain a copy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity;(iii) The petitioner shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond tobe executed under Chapter XXXV of BNS, 2023;(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of he isaccused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected;(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threator promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade himfrom disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with theevidence;(vi) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the defactocomplainant, and the witnesses;7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and mobile number tothe learned I Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai;(viii) The petitioner shall appear and sign before the learned I AdditionalSpecial Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai on all working days at 10:30 a.m., untilfurther orders; and(ix) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned I AdditionalSpecial Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai is entitled to pass appropriate ordersagainst the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions areimposed by him as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. State ofKerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283].10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to theconditions stated supra.Sd/- 19/03/2025 / TRUE COPY / 21/03/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. tsg8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TO1 THE I ADDITIONAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR NDPS ACT CASES, MADURAI. 2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI.3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, S.S.COLONY POLICE STATION, MADURAI.4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +2 CC to M/s.J.JEYA ARON RJA, Advocate ( SR-3118[I] dated 19/03/2025 ) ( SR-3139[I] dated 20/03/2025 ) ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.327 of 2025 Date :19/03/2025 ES/ 21.03.2025/9P/7CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from17/07/2023. 9/9