High Court · 2025

CRL OP (MD) No.4220 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 27/03/2025PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVELCRL OP (MD) No.4220 of 2025Janci Rani ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 VsThe State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police,Pettai Police Station,Tirunelveli City.Crime No.236 of 2024... Respondent/ComplainantFor Petitioner: Mr.M.Vairavan Kasirajan AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSSPRAYER :-For Bail in Crime No.236 of 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 04.03.2025under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.4220 of 2025to grant bail.2. The petitioner/Accused No.2 was arrested and remanded to judicialcustody on 19.10.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.236 of 2024 on the file of the respondent-police.3. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.10.2024, at about 14:00 hours, basedon secret information received by the Sub-Inspector of Police, he, along with histeam, went near Pettai, Mylapuram Kallarai Thootam, and conducted an inspection.At that time, they found that A1 to A3 were in possession of ganja. A1 was found inpossession of 1 kilogram of ganja and Rs.20,000/- in cash. The petitioner (A2) wasfound in possession of 2 kilograms of ganja and Rs.20,000/- in cash. Similarly, A3was found in possession of 1 kilogram of ganja and Rs.20,000/- in cash. Therespondent-police seized the ganja, one Vivo cellphone, and a two-wheeler withoutregistration. When they were questioned, they stated that the ganja was purchasedfrom Madurai and distributed among the accused persons. 4. In the course of the investigation, A1 confessed that more ganja wasavailable at her residence. Accordingly, a search was conducted, and a further 8kilograms of ganja was seized from her house. A1 further confessed that the otheraccused persons, namely A4 to A9, were also involved in this case. Acting on this2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.4220 of 2025information, A4 and A5 were arrested on 20.10.2024, and 2 kilograms of ganja wereseized from each of them. A6 was arrested on the same day, and 2 kilograms ofganja were seized from him. A7 and A8 were arrested with 1 kilogram of ganja and1.5 kilograms of ganja, respectively. A9 was arrested on 27.10.2024 and was found inpossession of 400 grams of ganja. The case of the prosecution is that all the accusedpersons acted with a common intention and were aware of each other's possessionof ganja. Hence, the total seizure of 20.9 kilograms of ganja was attributed to A1 toA9. 5. Mr.C.Vairavan Kasirajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,submits that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecutionand that the petitioner is an innocent person. He further submits that, according tothe FIR, the petitioner was in possession of 2 kgs of contraband (ganja), which doesnot constitute a commercial quantity. He further submits that the petitioner hasbeen in incarceration from 19.10.2024. He further submits that this Court has alreadygranted bail to Accused Nos.4, 5, 8 and 9 in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.21935, 13125 of 2024and Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.143 and 281 of 2025 vide order dated 10.01.2025. Thereafter,A3 was also granted bail by this Court on 21.02.2025 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2214 of2025. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to beimposed by this Court. Therefore, he prays for granting bail to the petitioner.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.4220 of 20256. Per contra, Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Additional PublicProsecutor appearing for the respondent-Police, submits that totally there are 20.900kgs of contraband (ganja) involved in this case. He further submits that petitionerhas two previous cases, which are similar in nature. Hence, he vehemently opposesto grant bail to the petitioner, by stating that if bail is granted, the petitioner maycause delay to the trial proceedings. He further submits that the petitioner has notsatisfied the twin conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Accordingly,he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Heard on both the sides. This court has perused the records.8. The FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25, and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. The respondent-police seized only 4kilograms of ganja from A1 to A3, and in particular, the petitioner (A2) was found inpossession of 2 kilograms of ganja. Based on the confessions of A1 to A3, otheraccused persons were arrested, and contraband was seized. To be noted, AccusedNos.3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 were enlarged on bail by this Court. It is apposite to extract aportion of the bail order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 21935 of 2025,etc., on 10.01.2025, which reads as follows: 6. ... There is no indication in the FIR that other accusedpersons are also involved in this case. Thereafter, the prosecution4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.4220 of 2025has developed the case based on the alleged confession of A1 andseized contraband from other accused persons on various dates,various quantities, which per se are in between quantities. In otherwords, these are all individual recoveries made from the otheraccused persons. 7.The main ground that has been raised is that the subsequentcontraband seized from the other accused persons cannot be said tobe in the course of the same transaction and it cannot be broughtwithin the scope of Section 34 of IPC on the ground that theprocurement/possession of ganja by the accused persons was infurtherance of a common intention. 8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor in order tosubstantiate his submission relied upon the judgment in MohamedAli and another v. The State, reported in [2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 842]and specifically relied upon paragraph No.28 in that judgment. Inthat judgment, this Court had interpreted the scope of Section 34ofIPC and has held that where there are various acts in furtherance ofcommon intention, all these acts can be put together in order todetermine the quantity of the contraband seized. 9.In the considered view of this Court, the seizure of thecontraband from A4 and A5 took place on 20.10.2024 at 7.00 hoursand each was found in possession of 2 kilograms of ganja. Insofar asA8, what was seized was 1.500 kilograms of ganja on 23.10.2024.similarly, what was seized from A9 was 400 grams of ganja on27.10.2024. Whether all these seizure at various dates from the otheraccused persons can be brought within the scope of Section 35 of theNDPS Act on the ground that each accused person had a culpablestate of mind and knew about the possession of ganja by the otheraccused person also, is a matter which can be dealt with only at thetime of trial. In the same way, the fact as to whether the accusedpersons were operating as a gang is also a matter which can beestablished only in the course of trial. ...5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.4220 of 20259. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the contraband seizedfrom the petitioner is below the limit of a commercial quantity. To be noted, theabove view is recorded only for the limited purpose of deciding the bail petition.The above view, in any way, would not cause any prejudice to the rights of theprosecution to establish its case during the trial. The petitioner has permanentresidence. Therefore, there is less possibility of absconding. Considering the sameand with a view to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to reform herself,this Court is inclined to grant an order of bail to the petitioner, however, subject tothe following conditions:(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousandonly) along with two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees TenThousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Principal Special Court fortrial of 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 Judge, Principal Special Court for trial of NDPS ActCases, Madurai shall obtain a copy of any one of identity proofs to ensure theiridentity;(iii) The petitioner shall furnish her residential address and mobile number tothe learned Judge, Principal Special Court for trial of NDPS Act Cases, Madurai;6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.4220 of 2025(iv) The petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent-police daily at10.30 a.m., and 05.30 p.m., until further orders;(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 an offence similar to the offence of she isaccused, or suspected, of the commission of which she 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; and(viii) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, learned Judge,Principal Special Court for NDPS and EC Act Cases, Madurai is entitled to passappropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if theaforementioned conditions are imposed by him as laid down by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283].10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to theconditions stated supra. sd/- 27/03/2025 / TRUE COPY / /03/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP (MD) No.4220 of 2025TRP TO1 THE JUDGE,PRINCIPAL SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NDPS ACT CASES, MADURAI.2 THE OFFICER INCHARGE,KOKKIRAKULAM MAHALIR PRISON, TIRUNELVELI.3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,PETTAI POLICE STATION,TIRUNELVELI CITY.4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/s.I.ANTHONY PRABU, Advocate ( SR-3557[I] dated 27/03/2025 ) ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.4220 of 2025 Date :27/03/2025 MK/SAR /27.03.2025 8P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 8/8