High Court · 2025

CRL.OP (MD) No.4734 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTReserved on : 23.04.2025Pronounced on : 29.04.2025COROMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELCRL.OP (MD) No.4734 of 2025Guna... Petitioner / Accused No.17Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu rep byThe Inspector of Police,Kundrakudi Police Station,Sivagangai District.(Crime No.112 of 2024)... Respondent / ComplainantPRAYER :- The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying to grant bail to the petitioner inCrime No.112 of 2024 on the file of the respondent-police. For Petitioner: Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondent: Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public ProsecutorORDER : The Court made the following order :-This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 11.03.2025under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying togrant bail.1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.4734 of 20252. The petitioner/Accused No.17 was arrested and remanded to judicialcustody on 14.11.2024 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,and Section 111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in connection with CrimeNo.112 of 2024 on the file of the respondent-police.3. The case of the prosecution, as per the final report, is that on 07.07.2024, atabout 13:00 hours, the Sub-Inspector of Police received credible informationregarding illegal activity. Acting upon this information, the police team proceeded tothe specified location, where they found a car bearing Registration No. AP-30-AA-2929 with Accused Nos.2 to 6 inside. While enquiring with them, they noticedAccused Nos.9 to 11 standing near a bridge in the vicinity. The respondent-policeattempted to apprehend them. However, upon seeing the police, they fled the sceneon a two-wheeler without a registration number. During the same incident, AccusedNos. 2 to 6 also escaped from the location using the said car. Accused No.12 fled thescene. A search of the area under the bridge led to the recovery of 61 bundles, whichwere later confirmed to be ganja. The contraband was seized and weighed in thepresence of the Revenue Inspector and the Village Administrative Officer, resulting inthe recovery of 122 kilograms of ganja. An alert was issued to the nearest districts,including toll gates. Subsequently, it was learned that the car which had fled from the2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.4734 of 2025scene was intercepted near the Samayapuram Toll Gate by the police, and AccusedNos. 2 to 6 were apprehended. At the time of arrest, they were found to be inpossession of 2 kilograms of ganja. During the course of the investigation, theinvolvement of other accused persons came to light. The role of Accused No.13 wasrevealed based on the confession of Accused No. 9. It was found that Accused No. 13had met Accused No. 1 and facilitated the identification of buyers for the contraband,who were later identified as Accused Nos. 9, 10, and 12. Accused No. 11 wasinvolved in arranging the transport and unloading of the contraband. Further, theconfession of Accused No. 13 led to the identification of Accused No. 14, who in turndisclosed the involvement of Accused Nos. 15 to 21. In total, 21 accused persons havebeen implicated in this case. The petitioners herein has been arrayed as A17.4. Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that thepetitioner is an innocent person and has not committed any offence as alleged by theprosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custodysince 14.11.2024 and that no contraband was recovered from the petitioner. Hefurther submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case onlybased on the confession statement of the co-accused. The alleged communicationbetween the petitioner and the other accused has not been substantiated with any calldetail records or supporting evidence. The petitioner was implicated based on the3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.4734 of 2025confession of A9. A formal arrest was made while the petitioner was already in jail,on the allegation that the conspiracy took place within the prison premises. Adetention order was also passed against the petitioner, which was subsequentlyrevoked by the Advisory Board. He, however, submitted that the petitioner is readyto abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly,he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.5. Per contra, Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Additional Public Prosecutorappearing for the respondent-police, submitted that apart from the confessionstatements of the accused persons, there are sufficient materials available on record toconnect the petitioner with the other co-accused and to establish the conspiracy. Thepetitioner herein maintained close contact with the co-accused and activelyparticipated in the distribution of ganja bundles across the Karaikudi Region. He alsofunctioned as a retail seller of the contraband. He also submitted that the trial is atinitial stage. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail at this stage, he will abscond, tamperwith prosecution witnesses, and thereby derail the fair trial process. It is alsopertinent to note that the petitioner has four previous criminal cases registeredagainst him under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, which reflects hispropensity to indulge in unlawful activities. Therefore, the learned Additional PublicProsecutor vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.4734 of 20256. Heard on both sides and perused the records.7. A perusal of the records indicates that there is no recovery of contrabandfrom the petitioner, and his implication in the present case is only based on theconfession of a co-accused, with no additional incriminating material on record. Inview of the same, the petitioner appears to have a strong arguable case. This Courtalso takes into consideration the prolonged period of incarceration alreadyundergone by the petitioner. Further, the records reveal that there are no othersubstantive materials connecting the petitioner to the alleged offence, apart from thesaid confession. In the absence of independent evidence establishing the petitioner’sinvolvement, it cannot be stated that the rigors contemplated under Section 37 of theNDPS Act would be attracted in the present case. It is to be noted that the above viewis recorded only for the limited purpose of deciding this bail petition. This view, inany way, would not cause any prejudice to the rights of the prosecution inestablishing its case during the trial. Considering the above and also considering theperiod of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however,subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, bail is granted to the petitioner 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 Ten5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.4734 of 2025Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special Court of EC Act andNDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai. (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, Special Court of EC Act and NDPS Act Cases,Pudukkottai shall 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 appear and sign before the learned Judge, Special Courtof EC Act and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, on all working days at 10.30 a.m. untilfurther orders.(vii) The petitioner shall not leave Tamil Nadu without prior permission of theTrial Court.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.4734 of 2025(viii) The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and mobile number tothe concerned Judge, Special Court of EC Act and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai andshall keep his mobile phone switched on and reachable.(ix) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Judge,Special Court for Trial of NDPS Act Cases, Madurai is entitled to pass appropriateorders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementionedconditions are imposed by him as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283].8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to theconditions stated supra. sd/- 29/04/2025 / TRUE COPY / /04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. PALTO1 THE JUDGE,SPECIAL COURT OF EC ACT AND NDPS ACT CASES, PUDUKKOTTAI.2 THE SUPERINTENDENT,CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.OP (MD) No.4734 of 20253 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KUNDRAKUDI POLICE STATION,SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/s.R.L.DHILIPAN PANDIAN, Advocate ( SR-5068[I] dated 29/04/2025 )+1 CC to M/s.S.RAMESH KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-5280[I] dated 30/04/2025 ) ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.4734 of 2025 Date :29/04/2025SA/SAR. /30.04.2025/8P/7CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 8/8