High Court · 2025

CRL.OP(MD).No.3316 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 01.04.2025CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELCRL.OP(MD).No.3316 of 2025V.Aandi Selvam,S/o.Velmurugan... Petitioner / Accused No.1Vs.The State of Tamil NaduRep. by The Inspector of Police,NIB CID, Thoothukkudi.(Crime No.14 of 2022)... Respondent / ComplainantPRAYER :- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying to enlarge petitioner on bail inconnection with the case in C.C.No.41 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned IIAdditional District Judge for NDPS Act cases, Madurai, in Crime No.14 of 2022 onthe file of the respondent-police. For Petitioner : Mr.NA.Manimaran, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor.ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 19.02.2025under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying togrant bail.1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.3316 of 20252. The petitioner/Accused No.1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custodyon 16.07.2022 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 inCrime No.14 of 2022 on the file of the respondent-police. After completion ofinvestigation, the charge sheet has been filed before the learned II Additional DistrictJudge for NDPS Act cases, Madurai and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.41 of2023.3. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.07.2022, at about 08:30 p.m., based onsecret information, the respondent-police conducted a raid behind Bharath Petroleumnear Pudhur Pandiyapuram Toll Plaza, where the accused persons had parked theirvehicles bearing Registration Nos.TN-84-M-4213 (Eicher) and TN-19-F-5555 (red-coloured Volkswagen). Upon seeing the police party, they attempted to escape.However, the respondent-police apprehended the petitioner (A1) on the spot andinterrogated him. Upon inquiry, it was found that the petitioner and the otheraccused were in joint possession of contraband (ganja) weighing 437 kg. Hence thecase.4. Mr.N.A.Manimaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that thepetitioner is an innocent person and has not committed any offence as alleged by theprosecution. He further submits that the petitioner has been arrayed as A1 and that2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.3316 of 2025he was an acting driver who proceeded to the place for driving whenever he wascalled for duty, without any refusal. On the date of occurrence, the petitioner went tothe spot to take the vehicle parked at the place of occurrence, unaware of thecontraband contained in the said vehicle. At that time, the respondent-police arrestedand remanded him. He further submits that, despite having no connection with thecrime, the petitioner has been incarcerated for more than three years. Additionally, hesubmits that there is no imminent possibility of the trial being conducted and that thepetitioner's continued detention, despite the lack of material evidence, violates hisright to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, thelearned counsel places reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inRabi Prakash -vs- State of Odisha reported in 2023 LiveLaw(SC) 533 (Special Leaveto Appeal (Crl.) No.4169/2023), wherein it has been held thus:“ The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against themost precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of theConstitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty mustoverride the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of theNDPS Act.”4.1. He further submits that A2 and A5 were already enlarged on bail by thisCourt in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11341 of 2023 and Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2821 of 20243/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.3316 of 2025respectively. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to abide any stringentconditions that may be imposed by this Court. He therefore prays to grant bail to thepetitioner. 5. Per contra, Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Additional Public Prosecutorappearing for the respondent-police, submits that this is the third bail applicationfiled by the petitioner before this Court. Earlier petition filed by the petitioner inCrl.O.P.(MD).No.21384 of 2023 was dismissed as there was no change incircumstance on 02.01.2024. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-“ 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that thepetitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by theprosecution and based on the confession statement of the co-accused,he was implicated in this case. He would further submit that thepetitioner was not available in the scene of occurrence and he is injudicial custody since 17.07.2022. Hence, he prays for grant bail to thepetitioner.4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State wouldsubmit that this is the petitioner's second application for bail and theearlier application for bail in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.8906 of 2023 wasdismissed as withdrawn on 15.06.2023. He would further submit that4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.3316 of 2025the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity and thepetitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions as required underSection 37 of the NDPS Act. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to thepetitioner. 5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case andalso considering the fact that there is no change in circumstances,since the dismissal of the earlier petition and the quantity involved inthis case is a commercial quantity and the petitioner has not satisfiedthe twin conditions as required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, thisCourt is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.6.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.”5.1. He further submits that the contraband seized in this case by therespondent-police is of a commercial quantity. There is sufficient material availableon record to show the involvement of the petitioner. He further submits that thepetitioner is the prime accused and that the petitioner and other accused personsconspired together and planned to illegally transport ganja to Sri Lanka. He furthersubmits that the investigating agency has collected toll gate receipts and documents,which prima facie establish the involvement of the petitioner in the crime and that, inthe Trial Court, the case is posted on 24.04.2025 for trial. He further submits that at5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.3316 of 2025this stage, if the petitioner is released on bail, he will tamper with the witnesses, fleefrom Tamilnadu and thereby delay the trial. In support of his argument, the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor relies upon the judgment in Narcotics Control Bureau-vs- Mohit Aggarwal, reported in (2022) 18 SCC 374. Thus, the learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor vehemently opposes to grant bail to the petitioner and prays fordismissal of this petition.6. Heard on both sides and perused all the materials available on record.7. A perusal of the records reveals that after the completion of the investigation,the respondent-police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and five otheraccused persons, which was taken on file by the learned II Additional District Judgefor NDPS Act cases, Madurai, in C.C.No.41 of 2023. It is the fact that there are 57prosecution witnesses who have yet to be examined. Hence, there is no possibility ofconcluding the trial within a short span of time. The petitioner has been in judicialcustody since 16.07.2022, i.e., for more than three years. In Rabi Prakash's case [citedsupra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that prolonged incarceration generallymilitates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 ofthe Constitution and that in such a situation, conditional liberty must override thestatutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, inlight of the above decision and the period of incarceration, this Court is of the opinion6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.3316 of 2025that bail should be granted to the petitioner. Moreover, this Court has alreadyenlarged A2 and A5 on bail in Crl.O.P. (MD) No. 11341 of 2023 and Crl.O.P. (MD)No. 2821 of 2024, respectively.8. Considering the above, and also taking into account the facts that the case isposted for trial before the Trial Court on 24.04.2025 and that there are no previouscases against the petitioner and with a view to give an opportunity to the petitioner toreform himself, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to thefollowing conditions:(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 II Additional DistrictJudge for NDPS Act cases, Madurai.(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 II Additional District Judge for NDPS Act cases, Maduraishall obtain a copy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity.(iii) The petitioner shall appear and sign before the learned II AdditionalDistrict Judge for NDPS Act cases, Madurai, on all working days, at 10.00 a.m. and05.00 p.m, until further orders.(iv) The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and mobile number to7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.3316 of 2025the learned II Additional District Judge for NDPS Act cases, Madurai, and shall keephis mobile phone switched on and reachable.(v) The petitioner shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond tobe executed under Chapter XXXV of BNS, 2023.(vi) The petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of whichhe is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.(vii) 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.(viii) The petitioner shall also not directly or indirectly, cause any threat to thedefacto complainant and witnesses.(ix) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Tamil Nadu without priorpermission of the Trial Court.(x) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned II AdditionalDistrict Judge for NDPS Act cases, Madurai or the Trial Court is entitled to passappropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if theaforementioned conditions are imposed by him / her as laid down by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283].8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP(MD).No.3316 of 20259. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to theconditions stated supra. sd/- 01/04/2025 / TRUE COPY / /04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. PALTO1 THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FOR NDPS ACT CASES, MADURAI.2 THE OFFICER INCHARGE,DISTRICT PRISON, THENI.3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,NIB CID, THOOTHUKKUDI.4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/s.NA.MANIMARAN, Advocate ( SR-3739[I] dated 01/04/2025 ) ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.3316 of 2025 Date :01/04/2025SA/SAR. /02.04.2025/9P/6CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 9/9