S.Vijayakumar v. The State of Tamilnadu

The Court made the following order :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 26.11.2024under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying to grant bail.

The petitioner / A13 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on22.09.2023 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in CrimeNo.374 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent-police. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.256 of 2024 on the file of the Special Principal District Judge for EC and NDPS Act cases, Madurai.

The case of the prosecution is that on 09.05.2023, at about 17.15 hours, based on secret information, the respondent-Police conducted raid on Thoothukudi RingRoad near Hano Joseph Hospital. At that time, they intercepted a car bearingRegistration No.TN 85 E 8763. On search, they found that the accused persons werein illegal possession of 40 kgs of Ganja. Based on the confession of A2, therespondent-Police reached Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District, where 2050 kgs of2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.20824 of 2024 Ganja was found hidden in a godown. Hence the case.

Ms.P.Sivaranjini, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. She further submits that the petitioner has been roped as an accused based on the confession said to have been given by theco-accused. She further submits that the petitioner was not present in the scene of crime and no contraband was recovered from him. She further submits that the prosecution agency has not collected any incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the crime. She further submits that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 22.09.2023. In support of her arguments, she relied on the order passed in the case of Ganesan vs. 1. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Sinthupatti Police Station, Madurai District and another in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20770 of2021 dated 15.03.2022. She however submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition to be imposed by this Court. She therefore prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

In response to the above submissions, Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-police, submits that in this case there are totally 14 accused persons and the petitioner has been arrayed asA13. He further submits that totally 2090 kgs of Ganja was seized from the accused3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.20824 of 2024persons and that the petitioner and other accused persons conspired together and planed to transport Ganja from Andhara Pradesh to Srilanka through thepetitioner's boat. He further submits that charges under Section 29 of the NDPS Acthas been made. He further submits that as per the directions of this Court, trial commenced and 9 witnesses were examined and that all the accused persons are inside the prison and that at this stage, if bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond and thereby delay the trial proceedings. He further submits that another case was registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act for commercial quantity and that the petitioner is a habitual offender. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition.

Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records.