High Court · 2025

(MD) No.20775 of 2024BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTReserved on 31.01.2025Delivered on 05.02.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESHCrl.O.P.(MD) Nos.20775 and 21246 of 20241.Nanthakumar ... Petitioner/Accused No.5 in Crl.O.P(MD) No.20775 of 20242.Manojkumar ... Petitioner/Accused No.6in Crl.O.P(MD) No.21246 of 2024Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by the Inspector of Police,Thoothukudi NIB CID Police Station,Thoothukudi District.Crime No.2 of 2024 ... Respondent/ Complainant (in both petitions)COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of CriminalProcedure Code, to enlarge the petitioners/Accused No.5 and 6 on bail in Crime No.2of 2024 pending on the file of the Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases,Madurai, on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.A.V.Arun, Advocate for M/s.J.Jeya Aron Raja, Advocate for Crl.O.P(MD) No.20775 of 20241/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (MD) No.20775 of 2024 Mr.S.Muniyandi, Advocate for M/s.J.Jeya Aron Raja, Advocate for Crl.O.P(MD) No.21246 of 2024 For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor (in both petitions) COMMON ORDERThe petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 6, who were arrested and remanded tojudicial custody for the offences under Sections 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) ofthe 'Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985' (hereinafter referred to as'NDPS Act' for brevity), on the file of the respondent, seek bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the Inspector of Police of SoorankudiPolice Station received a tip-off that there is possession and transportation of ganja atMuthiapuram seashore area. The same was recorded in general diary and forwardedto the superior officer and after getting permission, the police team proceeded to thespot and found a innova car. The front door was open and they found many bagskept in the trunk of the car. Upon search, 529 kilograms of ganja was seized. Twoaccused persons, who were present were also arrested on the spot. There are totally2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (MD) No.20775 of 2024six accused persons in this case and the petitioners have been arrayed as A5 and A6. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of A5 submitted that as perthe statement of LW-25, the car belongs to him and the said car was taken from himby A5 along with A3 and A4 and thereafter, the accused persons had changed theengine number and chassis number and the car was used for transportation of ganjato smuggle it to Sri Lanka. The learned counsel submitted that there was no recoveryof contraband from the petitioner and this petitioner (A5) is made as an accused onlybased on the confession of A3 and A4 and the statement recorded from LW-25. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of A6 submitted that thisaccused person is roped in on the ground that the ganja was seized from the propertybelonging to A6 where the car was parked. It was submitted that the confession of A1ad A2 merely states that the property belongs to this petitioner (A6). There is norecovery from this accused person and what is relied upon is only the confessionstatement and nothing else.5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor based on the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent submitted that insofar as A5 is concerned, LW-253/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (MD) No.20775 of 2024clearly explains as to how the car went into the hands of A5 and from there how itwant into the hands of A3 and A4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutorsubmitted that A5 was inside the jail for committing an IPC offence and at that pointof time, he got acquainted with A2 and A5. Hence, he was aware of the fact that thecar is going to be used for transporting ganja. 6. Insofar as A6 is concerned, it was submitted that the ownership of theproperty has been clearly spoken by the Sub-Registrar and that apart, A6 studied inHindustan College, Coimbatore, along with A2 and at that point of time, they gotacquaintance and A6 allowed his property to be used as a transit point to smugglethe contraband to Sri Lanka since this property is hardly 200 mtrs from the seashore.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that even though there are noprevious cases against A6, he acted alon with the other accused persons and he hadculpable mental state regarding the commission of the offence. Thus, the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor submitted that both A5 and A6 are roped in by relyingupon Section 35 of the NDPS Act which talks about the culpable mental state of theaccused persons about the commission of the offence. 7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (MD) No.20775 of 2024side and the materials available on record.8. There is no dispute with regard to the effect that there was no recoveryfrom A5 and A6 in this case. The contraband was available in a innova car. Thisinnova car stood in the name of LW-25. He states that A5 is his relative and he got intouch with LW-25 and requested for the car on the ground that a patient must betaken to Chennai for treatment. Thereafter, A5 came to the house of LW-25 and bothof them went in the same car and near a petrol bunk, A3 and A4 were present andthey said that they will be taking the car for taking the patient for treatment toChennai. They dropped LW-25 and A5 at Melur and took away the car.Subsequently, this car was used for the commission of crime and it is stated that theengine and chassis numbers were tampered with.9. The only question that arises is as to whether A5 was aware of the factthat the other accused persons are going to use the car for the commission of crime.For this, the only material available is the confession of A3 and A4 and the confessionof A5. The prosecution is developing the case as if A5 got acquainted with A2 to A4in the jail and it was planned in the jail and pursuant to the same, A5 managed to getthe car from LW-25 which was used for the transportation of ganja. 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (MD) No.20775 of 202410. In the considered view of this Court, since the material evidenceagainst A5 hinges upon the confession of the co-accused, this petitioner has anarguable case before the trial Court. That apart, it is seen that A5 is sufferingincarceration from 24.08.2024 and one previous case pertains to an IPC offence. Thus,this Court finds that twin conditions has been satisfied insofar as A5 is concerned. 11. The next issue is regarding the involvement of A6 in this case. The carwas parked in a property which stood in the name of A6. On a careful reading of theconfession of A1 and A2, it is seen that the property was actually under the control ofA2 even though the property stood in the name of A6. The prosecution strongly reliesupon the fact that A2 and A6 studied in the same college and they are known to eachother and hence, A6 was aware about the fact that his property is going to be utilizedfor the commission of the offence. 12. On the materials placed before this Court, it is quite clear that thematerial evidence against A6 is the confession of the co-accused and the confession ofA6. Hence, this Court finds that there is a strong arguable case for A6. This Court alsofinds that the investigation has been completed and the police report has been filed6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (MD) No.20775 of 2024and the case is now pending in C.C.No.262 of 2024 before the Special Court, Madurai.Apart form that, this Court also takes into consideration the fact that A6 is sufferingincarceration in this case from 30.08.2024 and there are no previous cases against A6.Thus, the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is satisfied. 13. In the light of the above, this Court is inclined to grant bail to thepetitioners subject to the following conditions: 14. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on hisexecuting a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with twosureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Principal Special Court forNDPS Act Cases, Madurai and on further conditions that:-[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in thesurety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank passBook to ensure their identity. [b] the petitioners shall report before the Trial Court during every date ofhearing without fail; [c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either duringinvestigation or trial.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (MD) No.20775 of 2024 [d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Courtis entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law asif the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by thelearned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered underSection 269 of B.N.S.2023. sd/- 05/02/2025 / TRUE COPY / 12/02/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (WRITS ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. PKNTo1.The Judge, Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai,2.The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi NIB CID Police Station, Thoothukudi District.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (MD) No.20775 of 20244.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.+2 CC to M/s.J.JEYA ARON RAJA, Advocate ( SR-1391, 1392[I] dated 05/02/2025 ) ORDER IN Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.20775 and 21246 of 2024 Date :05/02/2025RK (12/02/2025) 9P /7C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from17/07/2023 9/9