High Court · 2025

CRL MP(MD). No.8031 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 11/08/2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULACRL MP(MD). No.8031 of 2025in Crl.A(MD) No.696 of 2025Sakthiyendran @ Sakthi ... PetitionerVsThe State of Tamil Nadu,Rep by the Inspector of Police,Keerathurai Police Station,Madurai District.Crime No.413 of 2021.. ... RespondentPRAYER :-This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to suspend the sentenceimposed against petitioner in C.C.No.17 of 2022 dated 28.05.2025 passed by thelearned Principal Sessions Judge EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and enlarge thepetitioner on bail. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karuppasamypandiyan For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP(MD). No.8031 of 2025ORDERThe present appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the learnedPrincipal and Sessions Judge, EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, dated 28.05.2025,made in C.C.No.17 of 2012. 2.The petitioner/appellant is the third accused, who has been charged for theoffences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29(i) of NDPS Act and 25(1B)(b) ofArms Act, who has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:S.NoProvisions underwhich convictedSentence ofimprisonmentFine amount18(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C)of NDPS Act10 Years rigorousimprisonmentRs.1,00,000/-, indefault toundergo 6months simpleimprisonment3.The case of prosecution is that on 08.07.2021 at about 13.45 hours, PW2 hasconducted vehicle check-up and at that time, he intercepted a Car bearingregistration No.TN 59 CK 3492, driven by the accused Nos.1 and 3 and a bikewithout number plate, rode by the 2nd accused and after explaining the formalities2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP(MD). No.8031 of 2025and obtaining consent from the accused, PW2 has conducted search and 25 kgs ofGanja was found in the Car and by observing the legal formalities the same wasrecovered under seizure mahazar and samples were also taken. PW2 has alsorecorded confession from the first and second accused and seized the allegedvehicles under mahazar and sent the accused to prison. There are other twoaccused, A4, A5, who have been arrested on the allegation of criminal conspiracyand abetment. 4.After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against theaccused persons. At the conclusion of trial, the accused 1 to 3 were found guiltyand A3/petitioner/appellant, who has been convicted and sentenced as statedsupra. The 4th accused has been acquitted and the case against A5 has been split upand the same is pending.5.The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submitted that no recoveryhas been made against the petitioner/appellant/A3 and he has not given anyconfession. Despite there is no evidence to show that the petitioner/appellant hasabetted and entered into criminal conspiracy, he has been convicted. Even thoughit is alleged that the petitioner/appellant was also travelled in a Car along with A1,it is not established that the contraband seized from the petitioner/appellant. As3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP(MD). No.8031 of 2025the petitioner/appellant is the Driver of the Car and he has not given anyconfession. Even in the mahazar, the name of the petitioner/appellant has not beenmentioned and his signature was also not obtained.6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that thepetitioner/appellant is the person, who accompanied the first accused and thecontraband has been recovered from the Car, in which, A1, A3 were travelling. Theincriminating evidence against the petitioner/appellant has been dealt by the trialCourt in a meticulous manner and only in pursuant to that, thispetitioner/appellant has been convicted. 7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the offenceunder NDPS Act has to be dealt seriously than the offence of murder case. Theoffence relating to NDPS Act cases causes deleterious effects and a deadly impacton the society. In support of his above submission, he has relied on the decision ofState of Kerala Vs Rajesh, reported in 2020 SAR Crl 326. Reference has also beenmade to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State (GNCT Of Delhi)Narcotics Control Beaureu V Lokesh Chadha, dated 02.03.2021, wherein, it is heldthat where the trial has ended in an order of conviction, the High Court should notignore the fact that a finding of guilt of the accused has been arrived at by the Trial4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP(MD). No.8031 of 2025Judge only after appreciation of the evidence. By making the difference betweenthe enlargment of accused on bail during pre-trial arrest and suspension of sentenceand grant of bail, post-conviction, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in thecase of post-conviction bail, the Court has to consider the prima-facie merits of theappeal coupled with other factors and there should be strong compelling reasonsfor grant of bail, notwithstanding an order of conviction, by suspending thesentence. The relevant part of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted asunder:"9. While considering the rival submissions, we must at theoutset advert to the manner in which the learned Single Judge ofthe High Court has dealt with the application for suspension ofsentence under Section 389(1) of CrPC. The offence of which therespondent has been convicted by the Special Judge arises out ofthe provisions of Sections 23(c) a n d 25A of the NDPS Act. Thefindings of the learned Special Judge which have been arrived atafter a trial on the basis of evidence which has been adducedindicate that the respondent who was a proprietor of a courieragency was complicit with a foreign national in the booking oftwo parcels which were found to contain 325 grams of heroin and390 grams of pseudoephedrine. Section 37 of the NDPS Actstipulates that no person accused of an offence punishable foroffences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and also5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP(MD). No.8031 of 2025for offences involving a commercial quantity shall be released onbail, where the public prosecutor opposes the application, unlessthe Court is satisfied "that there are reasonable grounds forbelieving that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is notlikely to commit any offence while on bail". Where the trial hasended in an order of conviction, the High Court, when asuspension of sentence is sought under Section 389(1) of CrPC,must be duly cognizant of the fact that a finding of guilt has beenarrived at by the Trial Judge at the conclusion of the trial. This isnot to say that the High Court is deprived of its power to suspendthe sentence under Section 389(1) of CrPC. The High Court maydo so for sufficient reasons which must have a bearing on thepublic policy underlying the incorporation of Section 37 of theNDPS Act. At this stage, we will refer to the decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Preet Pal Singh v State of UttarPradesh (2020) 8 SCC 645 where Justice Indira Banerjee, speakingfor the Court, observed as follows:"35. There is a difference between grant of bailunder Section 439 of the CrPC in case of pre-trial arrestand suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the CrPCand grant of bail, post-conviction. In the earlier case theremay be presumption of innocence, which is a fundamentalpostulate of criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may beliberal, depending on the facts and circumstances of the6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP(MD). No.8031 of 2025case, on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is anexception, as held by this Court in Dataram Singh v. Stateof U.P. and Anr . (supra). However, in case of post-conviction bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence,there is a finding of guilt and the question of presumptionof innocence does not arise. Nor is the principle of bailbeing the rule and jail an exception attracted, once there isconviction upon trial. Rather, the Court considering anapplication for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, isto consider the prima facie merits of the appeal, coupledwith other factors. There should be strong compellingreasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an order ofconviction, by suspension of sentence, and this strong andcompelling reason must be recorded in the order grantingbail, as mandated in Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C.""10. The principles which must guide the grant of bail in a caseunder the NDPS Act have been reiterated in several decisions ofthis Court and we may refer to the decision in State of Kerala vRajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122. The High Court unfortunately, in thepresent case, has not applied its mind to the governing provisionsof the NDPS Act. On the basis of the material which emergedbefore the learned Special Judge and which forms the basis of theorder of conviction, we are of the view that no case forsuspension of sentence under Section 389(1) of CrPC was7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP(MD). No.8031 of 2025established. The order granting suspension of sentenceunder Section 389(1) of CrPC is unsustainable and wouldaccordingly have to be set aside."8.Admittedly, this is not a pre-trail bail application. As each case has its ownfacts on the grounds taken for appeal, this Court was convinced to admit theappeal, after being satisfied that there are prima facie grounds and arguable pointsto hear the appeal. Considering the fact that the petitioner/appellant is said to havebeen undergone incarceration for more than a year and there is no possibility totake up the appeal immediately, I feel it is appropriate to suspend the sentence ofimprisonment alone on conditions.9.Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspendedpending disposal of the criminal appeal and the petitioner is ordered to be enlargedon bail on the following conditions: 1.that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (RupeesTwenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to thesatisfaction of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, EC and NDPS Act Cases,Madurai;2.that the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all working days at10.30a.m., till the disposal of the appeal.8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP(MD). No.8031 of 202510. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. sd/- 11/08/2025 / TRUE COPY / /08/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I/II/III/IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. PNM TO1.The Principal Sessions Judge, EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai;2.The Superintendent,Central Priaon, Madurai3. The Inspector of Police,Keerathurai Police Station,Madurai District. Crime No.413 of 2021.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.+2 CC to M/s.G.KARUPPASAMY PANDIYAN, Advocate ( SR-8659[I] dated11/08/2025 )9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP(MD). No.8031 of 2025 ORDER IN CRL MP(MD). No.8031 of 2025in Crl.A(MD) No.696 of 2025 Date :11/08/2025 PR/12.08.2025 10P/7C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 10/10