PARAMAN v. STATE THROUGHTHE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE NIBCID

The Court Made the following order :-This petition has been filed praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the occurrence has taken place on 01.01.2011 and in the place of occurrence, the petitioner and others are found in possession of 210 kilograms of Ganja without having licence and under the said circumstances, the petitioner and others are said to have committed the offences under Sections 8(C)r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropicSubstances Act, 1985.

It is represented on the side of the petitioner that the petitioner has been arrayed as the third accused and he has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences and he simply travelled in the vehicle which involved in the occurrence and from01.01.2011, he is in custody and under the said circumstances, he is entitled to get bail.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) has submitted the entire Case Diary for the perusal of the Court and the Court has perused the same and found that one Chandrasekaran has lodged the complaint in question on 01.01.2011 and the same has been registered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in Crime No.1 of 2011 under the said sections. Further, it is seen from the Case Diary that in the place of occurrence, the petitioner and others are in aggregation found in possession of 210 kilograms of Ganja without having licence.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) has drawn the attention of the Court to the provision of Section 37(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, wherein it is stated like thus: “No person accused of an offence punishable for[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27Aand also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond.”

It has already been pointed out that in the place of occurrence, the petitioner and others are in aggregation found in possession of 210 kilograms of Ganja without having licence. Sincethe petitioner and others are found in possession of 210 kilograms of Ganja in the place of occurrence, it is needless to say that in the present case, commercial quantity is involved. Under the said circumstances, as per the said provision, the petitioner is not entitled to get bail and, therefore, the present petition deserves tobe dismissed.

In fine, the petition deserves dismissal and accordingly, dismissed. sd/- 25/05/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)TO1 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI.2 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,NIBCID, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.akm/30.05.11 /2p-4c/ ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.6250 of 2011 Date :25/05/2011