High Court · 2025

CRL OP(MD). No.947 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 27.01.2025PRESENTThe Hon`ble Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESHCRL OP(MD). No.947 of 2025Balaji... Petitioner/Accused No.3VsThe Inspector of Police,PEW-Melur Police Station,Madurai District.(Crime No.569 of 2024) ... Respondent / ComplainantFor Petitioner : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian, Advocate.For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public ProsecutorPETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS,2023.PRAYER :-For Bail in Crime No.569 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.ORDER : The Court made the following order :-The petitioner / Accused No.3, who was arrested and remanded to judicialcustody on 15.11.2024 for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.569 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police, seeksbail.1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.947 of 20252. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.10.2024, the Sub-Inspector of Policereceived a secret information that ganja is being smuggled from Andra Pradesh toMadurai. The same was recorded in the General Diary and was intimated to thesuperior officer and after getting the prior permission, the police team went to thespot. A1 was driving a lorry and this vehicle was intercepted. A search was made and85 kgs of ganja was seized from the lorry. On being questioned, A1 made a confessionthat the purchase was made from Andra Pradesh by A4 through A2 and A5 and theyused the vehicle of A1 to transport the contraband. A1 was immediately remandedon the same day. However, the FIR was registered as against all the accused personsbased on the confession of A1. A2 was arrested on 17.10.2024. During the course ofinvestigation, A1 confessed on the involvement of A3, who is said to haveaccompanied A4 while loading and unloading the contraband. That apart, A1 alsoidentified the house in which he delivered the contraband through which A1 and A2identified A3. Based on the same, A3 was arrested and remanded to judicial custodyon 15.11.2024.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is agedabout 21 years and he is a college going student and he has been roped in this caseonly based on the involvement of A4 who is the uncle of the petitioner. The learnedcounsel for the petitioner that this petitioner does not know about the transactions2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.947 of 2025and he does not have the financial wherewithal to send money to the accused personsand that his bank account was operated by A4. The learned counsel for the petitionersubmitted that A4, who is the uncle, seems to have used the name of the petitionerand hence the petitioner has been unfortunately roped in this case. The learnedcounsel submitted that the petitioner has suffered incarceration from 15.11.2024.4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relying upon the counteraffidavit filed by the respondent police submitted that the involvement of A3 issubstantiated by the confession of the co-accused and also the fact that the mobilenumber of A3 was clearly found in the mobile phone of A1 and that apart, thepetitioner had paid a sum of Rs.49,500/- from his bank account on 13.10.2024 andfurther transferred a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the bank account to the bank account ofA1 on 13.10.2024. The contraband came to be seized on 16.10.2024. Thus, there aresufficient materials to show that the petitioner (A3) was also effectively involved inthis case. Accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposedthe grant of bail to the petitioner and sought for dismissal of the petition on theground that the twin conditions have not been satisfied under Section 37 of the NDPSAct.5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side andperused the materials placed on record.3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.947 of 20256. The specific case of the prosecution is that the initial recovery of 85 kgs ofganja was made from the vehicle that was driven by A1. The involvement of the otheraccused persons came to light based on the confession of A1 and the subsequentconfession made by A2. Insofar as the petitioner (A3) is concerned, his involvementwas based on the confession of A1 and A2. Apart from that, the prosecution is alsorelying upon some of the payments that were made from the bank account of thepetitioner to A1.7. The petitioner is a 21 year old boy whose uncle has been arrayed as A4. Theactual contact was between A1, A2 and A4. The petitioner's identity seems to havebeen used by his uncle and thereby, his bank account was operated and his mobilewas also given to A1. The petitioner has suffered incarceration in this case from15.11.2024. The petitioner has strong and arguable case before the Court below andthe case is only at the stage of investigation. Exposing the petitioner inside jail for avery long time will also prove to be counterproductive considering the age of thepetitioner. This Court also takes into consideration the fact that there are no previouscases against the petitioner. Hence, on the peculiar facts of the case and moreparticularly based and more particularly on the age of the petitioner, this Court isinclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:8. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.947 of 2025bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, each fora like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Special Court for Trial of NDPSAct Cases, Madurai, and on further conditions that:-[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left ThumbImpression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy oftheir Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on everySaturday and Sunday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness eitherduring investigation or trial.[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation ortrial.[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learnedMagistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against thepetitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposedand the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Courthimself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. Stateof Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.947 of 2025[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registeredunder Section 269 of BNS, 2023. sd/- 27/01/2025/ TRUE COPY / 27/01/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. pal TO1 THE JUDGE, PRINCIPAL SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NDPS ACT CASES, MADURAI.2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEW - MELUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB JAIL, MELUR, MADURAI.4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/s.M.JEGADEESH PANDIAN, Advocate ( SR-919[I] dated 27/01/2025 ) ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.947 of 2025 Date :27/01/2025RS/IT/SAR-(27.01.2025) 6P 6CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/20236/6