Madras High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P(MD)No.10517 of 2025PRAYER in Crl.O.P(MD)No.10342 of 2025: Criminal Original Petition filed underSection 483 of BNSS Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail inC.C.No.65 of 2024 on the file of the Special Court for E.C. and NDPS Act Cases atPudukkottai in F.No.48/1/12/2023/NCB/MDS on the file of the respondent police.PRAYER in Crl.O.P(MD)No.10517 of 2025: Criminal Original Petition filed underSection 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in C.C.No.65 of 2024pending on the file of the Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai inconnection with F.No.48/1/12/2023/NCB/MDS on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.I.Kalantaraasik Ahamadu in Crl.O.P(MD)No.10342 of 2025For Petitioner : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj in Crl.O.P(MD)No.10517 of 2025For Respondent : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar Special Public Prosecutor for NCB Cases in both petitions COMMON ORDERThe petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.65 of 2024 on the file of the SpecialCourt for EC and NDPS Act cases, Pudukkottai. They are arrayed as Accused No.2and Accused No.5 in the above said case. They have filed these Criminal OriginalPetitions to grant bail.2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.10517 of 20252. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10342 of 2025 has filed the third bailapplication and his bail application was dismissed lastly on 29.04.2025 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5333 of 2025.3. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10517 of 2025 has filed this third bailapplication and his bail petition was dismissed lastly on 29.04.2025 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2515 of 2025.4. The respondent arrested and remanded the accused on 17.08.2023 for illegalpossession of a huge quantity of ganja, namely 423 kgs. The Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10517 of 2025 and the other accused conspired together and engaged inillegal trafficking of 423 kgs of ganja to Srilanka, which was purchased from AndhraPradesh and transported in the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-81-E-6961. Thedepartment received the information about the illegal trafficking and possession ofganja on 15.08.2023 at 11.15 hours and intercepted the said vehicle on 16.08.2023 at10.00 hours. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10517 of 2025, namely, Sasikumar,and Accused No.3/Manikandan, Accused No.4/Jegan carried the ganja in the vehicleand the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10342 of 2025 namely Naina Mohamed and3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.10517 of 2025Parimaladoss @ Doss/A1 travelled in another car piloting the said vehicles and theywere en route to illegally smuggle the said ganja to Srilanka. The department peopleapprehended them along with contraband and conducted the investigation and filedthe final report before the Special Court, Pudukkottai and the same was taken on filein C.C.No.65 of 2024. The said Parimaladoss @ Doss/A1 has filed the bail applicationbefore this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5935 of 2024 and the same was dismissed byorder dated 30.04.2024. Thereafter, he has preferred an appeal before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with the followingobservation:''We have heard the learned senior counsel for the parties.We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.However, we make it clear that if the trial is not completed withinthree months, liberty is given to the petitioner to renew theapplication for bail before the concerned trial Court, in which casethe earlier order denying bail will not stand in the petitioner'sway''.5.Thereafter, the learned trial Judge commenced the trial and examined sixwitnesses out of eight witnesses. The accused has filed the change of vakalat and filed4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.10517 of 2025the recall petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., and the trial was adjourned. At thattime, the said Parimala doss @ Doss, has filed the bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.1395 of2025 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, statingthat he is entitled to bail on the account of the non-completion of the trial within theperiod fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Judge has accepted the pleaand granted bail only on the ground that the trial has not been completed within thestipulated time. There was no discussion on merit and the petitioners have alsofiled a fresh bail petition on the basis of the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.The learned Judge has dismissed the bail petition stating that the Hon'ble SupremeCourt direction was confined only to the Parimala Doss @ Doss. Therefore, thepresent bail petitions have been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10517 of 2025,would submit that a speedy trial is a fundamental right. Once, the Hon'ble SupremeCourt issued a direction to complete the trial and there was no completion of the trialwithin the stipulated time, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief gotten byParimaladoss @ Doss in Crl.M.P.No.1395 of 2025 on the principle of doctrine ofparity.5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.10517 of 20257. The learned counsel would also place reliance on the judgment of S.L.P.(Crl)No.4648 of 2024 in the case of Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,Crl.O.P.No.2298 of 2025 and Crl.O.P.No.22705 of 2024 and seek the relief of bail onthe ground of prolonged incarceration without trial violating their preciousfundamental right to liberty conferred under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.8. The learned counsel also submitted that the accused and Parimaladoss @Doss are facing the identical allegation and hence, the principle of parity is applicableon the facts and circumstances of the case.9. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.O.P(MD)No.10342 of 2025, alsore-iterated the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10517 of 2025 and seeks bail.10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB Cases, appearing for thedepartment, would submit that the department is taking steps to cancel the bailgranted against Parimaladoss @ Doss and also the accused have adopted dilatorytactics and prolonged the trial. Totally there are nine witnesses in this case. Out ofnine witnesses, as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to complete the6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.10517 of 2025trial, six witnesses have been examined. The accused has filed a change of memo ofappearance and also filed the petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., to recall thewitnesses. Therefore, the trial has not been completed. Due to the intentional tacticsadopted by the accused, the trial has been prolonged and the Hon'ble Supreme Courtalso never issued any mandatory direction to grant bail to the accused if the trial hadnot been completed within a period of six months. They granted only the liberty tofile the application. The same was not properly considered by the learned SessionsJudge in granting bail to Parimala Doss @ Doss. No person can be allowed to takeadvantage of his own wrong. The trial is in the crucial stage and hence, granting bailwould seriously affect the trial. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would alsosubmit that the principle of parity is not applicable and abundant materials areavailable against the petitioners and the same was considered by this Court in the lastbail dismissal order, dated 29.04.2025 and these petitions have been filed without anychange of circumstances. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the bail petitions and alsospecifically submitted that the principle of parity has no application for the reasonthat there was no discussion on the merit and in support of his contention, thelearned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the precedent reported in 2021 10 SCC100 in the case of Union of India Through NCB vs. Md. Nawaz Khan.7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.10517 of 202511. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counselsappearing on either side and perused the materials available on record and theprecedents relied upon by them.12.There was a serious allegation of illicit trafficking and possession of 423 kgsof ganja and the same was intended to be smuggled to Srilanka. The investigatingAgency collected various materials, including call details, tower location of the cellphone used by the petitioners and the other accused to make out prima facie case ofthe involvement of the accused in the conspiracy. The said aspect was considered bythis Court in their last bail petitions in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.5333 of 2024 and 2515 of2025 and the same were dismissed on merits on 29.04.2025. Now, they filed the freshbail petitions before the learned trial Judge only on the ground that the co-accused,namely, Parimala doss @ Doss, was released on bail on the basis of the judgment ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court and seek application of the principle of parity. Thelearned trial Judge has dismissed the same by valid reasoning that the trial was in acrucial stage and letting the petitioners on bail would seriously affect the trial and theaccused themselves filed the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., and prolongedthe trial. The learned trial Judge also observed that the said order of the Hon'bleSupreme Court is only pertaining to the co-accused Parimala doss @ Doss.8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.10517 of 202513. The said reasoning of the learned trial judge deserves merit and there is noground to interfere with the same. Apart from that, the question of speedy trial hasnot arisen in this case for the reason that the accused themselves have filed the recallpetition, intending to prolong the trial and get bail. The accused themselves delayedthe trial and they can not be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong and theduty of the accused is to co-operate to complete the trial as per the direction of theHon'ble Supreme Court and among the 8 listed witnesses, examination of the sixwitnesses have already over and only remaining two witnesses have to be examinedand considering the huge quantity of ganja and the dismissal of the earlier bailpetition on merits and upon considering the material collected by the departmentduring the investigation and without any change of circumstances, filing the petitionon the principle of parity is not legally maintainable. It is relevant to refer toparagraph No.86 of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225''54.(4) At the same time, one cannot ignore the fact thatit is usually the accused who is interested in delaying theproceedings. As is often pointed out, “delay is a knowndefence tactic”. Since the burden of proving the guilt of the9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.10517 of 2025accused lies upon the prosecution, delay ordinarily prejudicesthe prosecution. Non-availability of witnesses, disappearanceof evidence by lapse of time really work against the interest ofthe prosecution. Of course, there may be cases where theprosecution, for whatever reason, also delays the proceedings.Therefore, in every case, where the right to speedy trial isalleged to have been infringed, the first question to be putand answered is- who is responsible for the delay?Proceedings taken by either party in good faith, to vindicatetheir rights and interest, as perceived by them, cannot betreated as delaying tactics nor can the time taken in pursuingsuch proceedings be counted towards delay. ...............(5) While determining whether undue delay hasoccurred (resulting in violation of Right to Speedy Trial) onemust have regard to all the attendant circumstances, includingnature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, the work-load of the court concerned, prevailing local conditions and soon-what is called, the systemic delays. It is true that it is the10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.10517 of 2025obligation of the State to ensure a speedy trial and Stateincludes judiciary as well, but a realistic and practicalapproach should be adopted in such matters instead of apedantic one.'' The judgment in S.L.P.(Crl)No.4648 of 2024 in the case of Ankur Chaudharyvs. State of Madhya Pradesh, relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner inCrl.O.P(MD)No.10517 of 2025 has no application to the present fact of the case for thereason that the said case as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the trialcommenced and the panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecutionand therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the incarceration period andthere as there was sufficient ground to acquit the accused granted bail. Here, among 8witnesses, 6 witnesses were examined and the examination of the remainingwitnesses was prolonged only at the instance of the accused and all the witnessessupported the case of the prosecution.14. The other judgment of this Court relied on by the learned counselThiru.R.C.Paul Kanagarai, has no application to the present case on the ground thatin the said case, the trial has not commenced in spite of the direction and in one case,there was no material available except the confession of the co-accused.11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.10517 of 202515.In view of the above discussion, the petitioners have not made out their caseto release them on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, as held by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in 2021(10) SCC 100 and 2023 - SCC 346 and the petitioners have notmade out any reasonable ground for believing that they are not guilty of offence. Onthe other hand, the department produced abundant materials to substantiate theirallegation, as discussed by this Court in the earlier dismissal order, dated 29.04.2025.16. In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. sd/- 31/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / /2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. VSDTO1 The Officer Incharge,District Jail, Pudukkottai.2 The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai Zonal Unit,Chennai in NCB.12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.10517 of 20253 The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Madurai Sub Zonal,Madurai District.4 The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ORDER IN Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.10342 and 10517 of 2025 Date :31/07/2025 AS/09.09.2025/13P/5CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 13/13