High Court · 2025

... Respondent/Complainant in all casesCOMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed underSection 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated thereinand in the petition filed therewith the High Court may be pleased toenlarge the petitioners on bail in connection with the Crime No.219of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.For Petitioners: Mr.K.Navaneetharaja in Crl.OP(MD).No.22065 of 2024Mr.M.Maran in Crl.OP(MD).No.21981 of 2024for M/s.B.Bhagawathi in Crl.OP(MD).No.22781 of 2024Mr.K.Siva Tharshana in Crl.OP(MD).No.425 of 2025Mr.S.Balaji in Crl.OP(MD).No.1500 of 2025For Respondent: Mr.S.Ravi,(in all cases)Additional Public ProsecutorCOMMON ORDER The petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 8 to 10, who werearrested and remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offencesunder Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) of the 'Narcotic Drugs andPsychotropic Substances Act, 1985' (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPSAct' for brevity) in Crime No.534 of 2022, on the file of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent police, seek bail.2. When these petitions came up for hearing on 29.01.2025, thisCourt passed the following order:“The case of the prosecution is that on 15.07.2024 at about 6.45a.m., the Sub-Inspector of police received an information about thepossession of ganja and this was entered in the general diary andinformed to the superior officer. Thereafter, a police team went tothe spot and they found four male and two female persons with agunny bag. They were informed about their rights and aftercompleting the formalities, the gunny bag was searched and a totalof 21.600 kg of ganja was seized. The further case of the prosecutionis that A1 and A2 gave a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to A3 and A4. A3and A4, in turn, purchased the contraband from A8 and A9 whobelonged to Andhra Pradesh. On coming to know of the same, thepolice team visited Andhra Pradesh and arrested A8 and A9. At thetime of arrest, A8 was found in possession of 8.450 kg of ganja andA9 was found in possession of 5.500 kg of ganja. They made aconfession to the effect that they had purchased the ganja from A10in huge quantities and that they used to sell the same in TamilNadu. Accordingly, A10 was identified and was arrested on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis same day and 8.580 kg of ganja was seized. A8 to A10 were broughtto Tamil Nadu by means of a transit warrant and they wereproduced before the concerned court and were remanded to judicialcustody.2. The specific case of the prosecutionis that all the accused persons joinedtogether and in the course of the sametransaction and in furtherance of theircommon intention, the seizure that wasmade from the accused persons must be puttogether and accordingly the prosecutionclaims that the present case involves 44.13kg of ganja which is a commercial quantity.3. These bail petitions have been filedby A1 to A3 and A8 to A10.4. The learned counsel appearing onbehalf of A1 submitted that there is violationof Rule 3 of the Narcotic Drugs andPsychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage,Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). Tosubstantiate the same, the learned counselrelied upon the FIR that was registered inthis case and contended that after the seizureof the contraband, no steps were taken toproperly secure the contraband and whereasit was merely tied with a rope. It was furthersubmitted that A1 to A6 were arrested on15.07.2024 and they were produced beforethe learned Magistrate on 16.07.2024.However, the sample was taken before thelearned Magistrate only on 25.07.2024 andthereafter, the sample was received by theRFSL only on 29.08.2024. Hence, there isabsolutely no explanation as to whathappened during the interregnum periodand who was in control of the contrabandthat was seized. The learned counselsubmitted that A1 is a college student andthat he has no previous case and he has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis suffered incarceration from 15.07.2024.5. The learned counsel appearing onbehalf of A2 also made similar submissionsby adopting the stand taken by A1. Thelearned counsel submitted that A2 is a B.E.graduate who is working in an IT companyand there are no previous cases against himand that a false case has been foisted againstA2.6. The learned counsel appearing onbehalf of A3 also adopted the abovearguments. He submitted that A3 is awoman and nothing was recovered from A3.He further submitted that A3 has twochildren who are aged about 6 and 9 yearsrespectively and that there are no previouscases against this accused person. Thelearned counsel further submitted that thehusband of A3 is bedridden for more thantwo years and he has to be taken care. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7. The learned counsel appearing onbehalf of A8 and A9 submitted that thesepersons came into the picture after nearlyone month after the FIR was registered inthis case. It was further submitted that 8.450kg is said to have been recovered from A8and 5.5 kg is said to have been recoveredfrom A9 and there are absolutely nomaterials to show as to whether suchrecovery was informed to the concernedMagistrate in Vijayanagaram and the socalled recovery comes to light only whenthese accused persons were produced beforethe Special Court in Tamil Nadu. Hence, thevery recovery of the contraband from A8and A9 is highly doubtful. It was furthersubmitted that the involvement of A8 andA9 was based on the confession of the co-accused and except the confession, there isno material to connect A8 and A9 in this case https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and even the phone call details between theaccused persons has not been providedalong with the police report that has beenfiled before the Court below. The learnedcounsel submitted that both A8 and A9 arecollege students and there are no badantecedents to these petitioners.8. The learned counsel appearing onbehalf of A10 submitted that this accusedwas added based on the so-called confessionof A8 and A9. It was submitted that therewas absolutely no material to connect A1 toA6 with this petitioner and the case of theprosecution hinges upon the confession ofA8 and A9. Even the so-called recovery of8.500 kg of ganja is highly doubtful sincethere is no material to show that therecovery of contraband was informed to thelocal Magistrate before whom A10 wasproduced and the recovery of ganja for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis first time was only informed to the SpecialCourt in Tamil Nadu after A8 to A10 wereproduced before the concerned Court. It wassubmitted that there are no materials interms of any phone call records to connectA10 with the other accused persons. Thelearned counsel submitted that there are noprevious cases against A10 and A10 hassuffered incarceration in this case from13.08.2024.9. Per contra, the learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor submitted that there is noviolation of Rule 3 of the Rules. It wassubmitted that the contraband was availablein a gunny bag which was in control of A1 toA6 and this gunny bag was tightlyclosed/secured by tying it with a rope andthe same is perfectly in compliance withRule 3(3) of the Rules. The learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor submitted that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A1 to A6 were arrested in this case on15.07.2024 along with 21.600 kg of ganja.They were produced on 16.07.2024 and onthe same day, the contraband that wasseized was also produced before the Court.The Learned Magistrate directed thecontraband to be kept in malcana. Thecontraband that was seized was producedbefore the learned Magistrate on 25.07.2024and samples were taken on the same day.There was a delay from 25.07.2024 to23.08.2024 on the part of the MagistrateCourt in not sending the sample to theSpecial Court. It was submitted that thisdelay cannot be attributed or put against therespondent police. The learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor further submitted thatafter the sample reached the Special Court,immediately on 23.08.2024, a requisition wasmade for sending it for analysis. The sample https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis was ultimately sent to the RFSL lab and itwas received on 29.08.2024. The learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor thereforesubmitted that there was absolutely no delayon the part of the respondent police insending the sample and the delay that wascaused by the Court cannot be put againstthe prosecution. 10. The learned Additional PublicProsecutor further submitted that A8 to A10were arrested on 13.08.2024 and thecontraband was also seized from each ofthose accused persons. It was submitted thatA8 to A10 were produced before the learnedJudicial Magistrate, Vijayanagaram, alongwith the contraband that was seized. Atransit warrant was issued and theseaccused persons were brought to Maduraiand were produced before the Special Court.At that point of time, the contraband that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis was seized from A8 to A10 was alsoproduced before the Court. The sample wasdrawn before the Special Court andthereafter it was sent to the RFSL along withthe samples that was already taken from thecontraband that was seized from A1 to A6and it was received on 29.08.2024. Thelearned Additional Public Prosecutorsubmitted that LW15 to LW18 speak aboutthe phone call details and the CDRparticulars are also available and the same isyet to be presented before the Court sincethe certificate as required under theEvidence Act is awaited. The learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor also producedthe phone call details with respect to thecommunication made between the accusedpersons during the relevant period.11. Insofar as the seizure of thecontraband from A8 to A10, the learned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Additional Public Prosecutor sought for timeto produce the necessary materials tosubstantiate that such a seizure wasintimated before the learned JudicialMagistrate, Vijayanagaram and that it wasnot produced for the first time before theSpecial Court as was attempted to beprojected on the side of the accused persons.12. To produce the relevant materials,post this case 30.01.2025. 3. The matter was taken up for hearing today. The learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor produced the transit warrant issuedby the Judicial Magistrate at Vijayanagaram and also the affidavitfiled by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kumuli Police Station, beforethe Magistrate seeking for transit warrant. The learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor also filed the arrest memo of each of the accusedperson. By relying upon all these documents, the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor submitted that the seizure of ganjafrom A8 to A10 was properly mentioned in the affidavit and it was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis produced before the Court while the accused persons wereproduced after the arrest. Thereafter, the ganja that was seized wasbrought to the Special Court and samples were taken and it wassent to RFSL along with the samples that was already taken fromthe contraband that was seized from A1 to A6. The learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the CDR detailsare already available and the investigation officer is in the process ofcollecting the relevant certificate and once the certificate is obtained,it will be filed along with the certificate before the Court. Thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that there isone previous case against A10 which also involves commercialquantity of 110 kilograms pending investigation at RajavommangiPolice Station. Accordingly, the learned Additional PublicProsecutor submitted that there is no statutory violation in this caseand the twin requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act hasnot been satisfied and hence, these petitions are liable to bedismissed by this Court. 4. This Court has carefully considered the submissions madeon either side and the materials available on record.5. In the instant case, four separate seizures have been made https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis by the respondent police. The first seizure of 21.600 kilograms ofganja was made while arresting A1 to A6 on 15.07.2024. The secondseizure was made from A8 to the tune of 8.450 kilograms of ganja.The third seizure was done from A9 who possessed 5.500 kilogramsof ganja. The fourth seizure was from A10 to the tune of 8.580kilograms of ganja. The specific case of the prosecution is that all theaccused persons acted on a collective understanding and therefore,the four individual seizures were brought together and the totalquantity of the contraband has been shown as 44.13 kilograms ofganja.6. The involvement of A8 to A10 could not have come tosurface without the confession of the co-accused who were arrestedon 15.07.2024. There was no need for the investigation officer alongwith the police team to go all the way to Andhra Pradesh to secureA8 to A10 without those details furnished by the other accusedpersons. In view of the same, this Court is of the prima facie opinionthat the prosecution has brought this case within the scope ofSection 34 of IPC since the accused persons have acted infurtherance of a common intention. The money was given by A1and A2 to A3 and A4 and A3 and A4 in turn purchased the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis contraband from A8 and A9 and they in turn had purchased it fromA10. The involvement of A10 came to light only based on theconfession of A8 and A9. Thus the joint involvement of the accusedpersons has been prima facie established and the ganja had enteredTamil Nadu only from Andhra Pradesh with the help of A8 to A10.7. Insofar as A1 to A3, the gunny bag containing 21.600kilograms of ganja was in control of A1 to A6. It was submitted thatRule 3 of the Rules has not been complied with and therefore, suchmandatory violation enures in favour of the accused persons. Rule 3(3) provides for proper packing of the bag to ensure that notampering take place. In the instant case, the materials placed beforethis Court shows that the gunny bag was properly tied with a ropeat the top of the bag and was properly secured and that is the bestthat can be done insofar as the gunny bag is concerned. Hence, thereis no violation of the Rule.8. The next issue is with regard to the delay in sending thecontraband that was seized to the Court and the further delay insending the samples to the laboratory. 9. The materials placed before this Court shows that 21.600kilograms of ganja was seized from the accused persons (A1 to A6) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis when they were arrested on 15.07.2024. They were produced beforethe Court on 16.07.2024 and on the same day, the contraband wasproduced before the Court. On directions given by the learnedMagistrate, the contraband was kept in Malcana. Thereafter on25.07.2024, the samples were taken in the presence of the Magistrate.The Magistrate Court should have sent the samples to the SpecialCourt immediately. However, it was sent only on 23.08.2024. Thusthe delay is on the part of the Magistrate Court and not on the partof the prosecution. Thereafter, the Special Court had sent thesamples to RFSL Lab which was received on 29.08.2024. Thus thedelay in the sample reaching the RFSL is not attributable to thepolice. Consequently, there cannot be an assumption that therecould have been some tampering during the interregnum period.10. Even insofar as the contraband that was seized from A8 toA10, it was produced along with the accused persons before theVijayanagaram Court on 14.08.2024 and there is mention about thesame both in the affidavit filed before the Court seeking for transitwarrant as well as in the arrest memo that was produced before theCourt. The contraband seized from A8 to A10 was brought alongwith the accused persons to Tamil Nadu and they were produced https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis before the Special Court and the sample was drawn before theSpecial Court and those samples were also sent along with thesamples taken from the contraband seized from A1 to A6. Hence,this Court does not find any delay on the part of the police inproducing the contraband to raise a presumption that there couldhave been tampering on the part of the prosecution. 11. It was submitted that A1 to A3 do not have any previouscases against them and they have suffered incarceration from15.07.2024 onwards and considering their long incarceration andalso of the fact that the final report has been filed, it was submittedthat they can be enlarged on bail. Under normal circumstances, thisCourt would have favorably considered this submission since thepolice report has been filed after completion of investigation and itwill take some more time to start the trial and complete theproceedings. However, the ramification in this case involves twoStates. It has become a big challenge for the police as well as for theNIB to keep control of the movement of ganja which is frequentlytransported from Andhra Pradesh. The main supply of ganja inmany cases is found to emanate from Andhra Pradesh and it isreaching Tamil Nadu. After reaching Tamil Nadu, attempt is made https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis to bring it to Thoothukudi or Rameswaram and from there, it issmuggled to Sri Lanka. The call details that were placed before thisCourt shows that A1 to A6 were in touch with each other and havemade several calls during the relevant point of time. A3 has, in fact,made seven calls to A8 who is in Andhra Pradesh during therelevant point of time and there was telephone contact between A8,A9 and A10. Hence, the accused persons are acting as a networkand unless and otherwise, the Courts are going to get strict, it willbe impossible for the police to control the movement of hugequantities of ganja that are transported from Andhra Pradesh toTamil Nadu. Therefore, the long incarceration suffered by A1 to A3by itself is not a ground for granting them bail since a larger publicinterest is involved and this Court does not find any mandatoryviolation.12. Insofar as A8 to A10 are concerned, their involvementcame to light based on the confession of the co-accused and withoutthem, the ganja could not have crossed the boundaries of AndhraPradesh. Granting them bail will certainly result in these personsabsconding and it will be a difficult task for the police to once againgo in search of A8 to A10. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

13. In the considered view of this Court, there is nostatutory/mandatory violation in this case and hence, the twinconditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act has not been satisfied. 14. In the result, these petitions are dismissed and there shallbe a direction to the learned Additional District Judge/PrincipalSpecial Court (EC and NDPS Act Cases), Madurai, to dispose ofC.C.No.17 of 2025 within a period of six months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. Any observations made in this orderwill not have any bearing and the trial Court shall deal with the caseon its own merits and in accordance with law. sd/- 03/02/2025 / TRUE COPY / /02/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I/II/III/IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.PKNTO1 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/PRINCIPAL SPECIALCOURT(EC AND NDPS ACT CASES),MADURAI.2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,UTHAMAPALAYAM POLICE STATION,THENI.3 THE SUPERINTENDENT,CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 THE OFFICER INCHARGE,DISTRICT PRISON, THENI.5 THE SUPERINTENDENT,SPECIAL PRISON FOR WOMAN, MADURAI.6 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.22065 of 2024 Date :03/02/2025NBF / SAR- (18/02/2025) 21P/7CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies inthis format from 17/07/2023