High Court · 2025

CRL.OP (MD) No.1889 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 15.04.2025PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELCRL.OP (MD) No.1889 of 2025Matheshwaran... Petitioner / Accused No.4Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu rep byThe Inspector of Police,Anna Nagar Police Station,Madurai District.(Crime No.451 of 2024)... Respondent / ComplainantPRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying to grant bail to the petitioner inCrime No.451 of 2024 on the file of the respondent-police. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Poornachandran Advocate For Respondent :Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram,Additional Public Prosecutor1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.1889 of 2025ORDER : The Court made the following order :-This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 28.01.2025under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying togrant bail.2. The petitioner/Accused No.4 was arrested and remanded to judicialcustody on 11.07.2024 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,in Crime No.451 of 2024 on the file of the respondent-police.3. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.07.2024, at 07:40 p.m., the defactocomplainant, a Sub-Inspector of Police, along with his team, was surveilling nearBrindha Nagar Granite Quarry. The police found that seven accused persons weretrafficking 21 kg of ganja on three two-wheelers bearing Registration Nos.TN-64-X-0078, TN-59-CH-3195, and TN-64-P-3372. The police arrested the accused and seizedganja. The respondent-police placed the said contraband in a white gunny bag,sealed it in the presence of witnesses, and marked it as P1. The eleven hockey-coloured wrappers were also sealed and marked as P2. Hence, the case.4. Mr.S.Poornachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that thepetitioner is an innocent person and that he has not committed any offence asalleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the petitioner has been in2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.1889 of 2025judicial custody since 11.07.2024. He further submits that the respondent-policehave not taken samples in accordance with the Rules, particularly Rule 3 of theNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling andDisposal) Rules, 2022, which is mandatory in nature. Since the mandatoryprovisions have not been properly complied with, the petitioner is entitled to bereleased on bail. Accordingly, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner. In support ofhis submissions, he relied on the following case laws:-(i) Judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh inGurprabh Singh -vs- State of Punjab Neutral Citation No.2025:PHHC:027809.(ii) Judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in SmtSoniya W/o Sagar Arora -vs- The State of Madhya PradeshIncharge Police Station PS Noorabad District Morena (MadhyaPradesh) in Misc. Criminal Case No.36271 of 2022.(iii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in AnkurChaudhary -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave toAppeal (Crl.) No.4648 of 2024 dated 28.05.2024.(iv) Common Judgment of this Court in Satham Hussein -vs- The Stateof Tamilnadu in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.18999, 19356, 19473 and 19610of 2024 dated 06.12.2024.(v) Order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in UmaMahesh Alias Mahesh Katkam -vs- The State of Madhya Pradeshin Misc. Criminal Case No.2426 of 2023 dated 31.01.2023.3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.1889 of 20255. Per contra, Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, the learned Additional PublicProsecutor appearing for the respondent-police, submits that the respondent-policeseized 11 packets containing 21 kilograms of ganja from the accused persons, whichwere homogeneous in nature. Hence, the respondent-police transferred the saidganja into a single gunny bag and thereafter, a sample was taken in the presence ofthe Magistrate, as required under Section 52 of the Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropicSubstances Act, 1985. The Magistrate has duly certified that the contraband weighed21 kilograms, which constitutes a commercial quantity. He further submits thatsince the contents of the eleven packets were homogeneous in nature, therespondent-police combined them into a single plastic gunny bag. Therefore, there isno violation in the seizure or the collection of samples. In support of hissubmissions, he relied on the following case laws:-(i) Order of this Court in T.Venkatesh -vs- The State in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.172, 1621, 1628 and 2119 of 2021 dated 30.04.2021.(ii)Judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Mukesh RajaramChaudhari -vs- State of Maharashtra reported in 2023 SCC OnLineBom 2096.5.1. He further submits that if the petitioner is released on bail, he will tamperwith the witnesses and hamper the investigation. Further, he will flee from India4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.1889 of 2025and thereby delay the trial. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the Criminal OriginalPetition.6. Heard on both sides. Perused the records.7. On receiving secret information, the respondent-police proceeded to thescene of occurrence, arrested and interrogated A1 to A7, and found them inpossession of 21 kilograms of ganja contained in eleven packets. The contrabandwas seized and weighed, confirming a total weight of 21 kilograms. As the contentswere homogeneous in nature, the respondent-police removed the ganja from thewrappers and placed it into a single gunny bag, which was marked as P1. Thewrappers from which the contraband was removed were placed into another bagand marked as P2. It is to be noted that a seizure mahazar was prepared at the spot,and A1 to A7 signed the same. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer filed anapplication before the concerned Magistrate, who certified that the contrabandcontained in P1 is 21 kilograms. Representative samples were also drawn andmarked as S1 and S2. Since the contraband seized from the eleven packets washomogeneous in nature, prima facie, this Court finds no violation in the procedurefollowed for seizure, preparation of the mahazar, or the collection of samples. To benoted, the above view is recorded only for the limited purpose of deciding the bailpetition. The above view, in any way, would not cause prejudice to the rights of the5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.1889 of 2025petitioner to defend the case during the Trial. The case laws relied upon by thelearned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts and not applicable tothe facts of the present case. Since the contraband seized in this case is a commercialquantity, the rigors stated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be applicable to thepresent case. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of theoffence allegedly committed by the petitioner, and considering the quantity ofcontraband involved in the case, which constitutes a commercial quantity, this Courtis not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 15/04/2025 / TRUE COPY / /05/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. pal To1.The Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai District.6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.1889 of 20252 THE SUPERINTENDENT,CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.1889 of 2025 Date :15/04/2025 MK/SAR /06.05.2025 7P/4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 7/7