High Court · 2025

CRL.M.P.(MD).No.14363 of 2024BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 01.04.2025COROMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELCRL.M.P.(MD).No.14363 of 2024inCRL.O.P.(MD).No.11341 of 2023The State of Tamil Nadu rep byThe Inspector of Police,NIBCID,Thoothukudi District.(Crime No.14 of 2022)... Petitioner / Respondent / ComplainantVs.P.Chinnaraj... Respondent / Petitioner / Accused No.2PRAYER :- The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 483(b) of theBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying to cancel the bail grantedby this Court to the respondent in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11341 of 2023 on 30.06.2023. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public ProsecutorFor Respondent:Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai,AdvocateORDERThis Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner on1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.M.P.(MD).No.14363 of 202420.12.2024 under Section 483(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),2023 praying to cancel the bail granted by this Court to the respondent in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11341 of 2023 on 30.06.2023.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.07.2022, at about 08:30 p.m., based onsecret information, the petitioner-police conducted a raid behind Bharath Petroleumnear Pudhur Pandiyapuram Toll Plaza, where the accused persons had parked theirvehicles bearing Registration Nos.TN-84-M-4213 (Eicher) and TN-19-F-5555 (red-coloured Volkswagen). Upon seeing the police party, they attempted to escape.However, the petitioner-police apprehended A1 on the spot and interrogated him.Upon inquiry, it was found that the respondent and the other accused persons werein joint possession of contraband (ganja) weighing 437 kg. Hence the case.3. Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, the learned Additional Public Prosecutorappearing for the petitioner-police, submits that bail was granted by this Court to therespondent in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.11341 of 2023 on 30.06.2023 on the ground that exceptfor the confession statement, no other material is available to connect the respondentherein to the crime. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:“4. It is seen that there are two accused, in which, the petitioner isarrayed as A2. The petitioner has been implicated as accused only onthe confession of A1. According to the case of the prosecution, the first2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.M.P.(MD).No.14363 of 2024accused found in possession of 437 Kgs of Ganja. Except the confessionstatement, no other material is available to connect the petitioner asaccused along with the first accused. That apart, as against thepetitioner, non bailable warrant was issued and on direction, thepetitioner surrendered. However, recall petition was dismissed and assuch, the petitioner remanded to judicial custody. Therefore, thepetitioner make out a prima facie case in order to satisfy the twinconditions as contemplated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 5.Considering the above facts and circumstances, of the case andalso the period of incarceration this court is inclined to grant bail to thepetitioner, subject to the following conditions:(a) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail oncondition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees TenThousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfactionof the learned Special Court for trial of Cases under EC & NDPS ActCases,Madurai, and on further conditions that:[b] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left ThumbImpression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy oftheir Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.M.P.(MD).No.14363 of 2024[c] the petitioner shall report before the trial Court daily at 10.30A.M., until further orders. [d] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation ortrial. [f] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness eitherduring investigation or trial. [g] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learnedJudicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actionagainst the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions havebeen imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learnedMagistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [h] If theaccused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered underSection 229A IPC.”However, the petitioner’s claim of establishing a prima facie case to satisfy the twinconditions contemplated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is erroneous. Therespondent had followed the vehicle and fled the scene upon seeing the police. Calldetail records substantiate that the respondent followed the vehicle transporting4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.M.P.(MD).No.14363 of 2024contraband. This case involves the recovery of a substantial quantity of contrabandintended for transporting to Sri Lanka. He further submits that the surrender of theaccused before the court, following the dismissal of his anticipatory bail, does notnegate the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which was not dulyconsidered at the time of granting bail. Accordingly, he prays to allow this petition.4. Per contra, Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for therespondent, submits that the respondent has been falsely implicated in this case andthat, at the relevant time, he was taking care of his 10-month-old grandson, whosuffered severe seizures. As a result, the child was admitted and treated at theGovernment Hospital, Tuticorin. Unfortunately, the respondent's grandson passedaway on 16.07.2022, the date of his arrest. Hence, the respondent has no connectionwhatsoever with Accused No. 1 and the alleged incidents. 4.1. He further submits that the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-19-F-5555,in which the respondent is alleged to have been travelling, does not belong to him.The mere presence of traces of his cellphone signal in the locality cannot be a groundfor his implication. Since the place of occurrence is a highway, public movement iscommon. The respondent’s contact with Accused No. 3 was solely related to a bulkpurchase transaction. 4.2. He further submits that the respondent's anticipatory bail applications were5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.M.P.(MD).No.14363 of 2024rejected. Subsequently, upon the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant, the respondentsurrendered on 05.09.2022. In the meantime, a charge sheet was filed and taken onrecord in C.C.No.41 of 2023 before the Special Court for Trial of Cases under E.C. &NDPS, Madurai. The respondent has been attending trial without any default.Thereafter, the respondent filed a bail petition before the Special Court for Trial ofCases under E.C. & NDPS, Madurai, which was dismissed. He then filed another bailapplication before this Court in Crl.O.P. (MD) No. 11341 of 2023. Upon satisfying thetwin conditions provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, this Court, by anorder dated 30.06.2023, granted bail to the respondent with conditions. Therespondent has been complying with all conditions imposed by this Court withoutany default till date. 4.3. He further submits that the respondent has no prior criminal antecedentsand has not been involved in any offence while on bail. However, the petitioner hasfiled the present application for cancellation of bail without any valid basis. ThisCourt has repeatedly held that the conduct of an accused person after being enlargedon bail must be considered while deciding an application for cancellation of bail.Furthermore, a bail cancellation application can be entertained only when there aresupervening circumstances indicating misconduct by the accused while on bail. Theincidents alleged by the petitioner occurred before the accused was granted bail and,6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.M.P.(MD).No.14363 of 2024therefore, cannot be considered as grounds for its cancellation. In thesecircumstances, it is just and necessary that the present application be dismissed.Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.5. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perusedall the materials available on record.6. On perusal of the records, it appears that the respondent has not violated anyof the conditions imposed after being released on bail. Although the petitioner hasoption to file an appeal or a review petition, they have chosen to file this bailcancellation petition against the respondent. Furthermore, no trial has commenced,and the proceedings are progressing at a slow pace. The petitioner has not taken anyeffective steps to expedite the trial. Therefore, this Court finds no grounds to interferewith the order passed in Crl.O.P. (MD) No.11341 of 2023 on 30.06.2023. This Courtfinds no infirmity or illegality in the said order. Hence, this petition lacks merit anddeserves to be dismissed.7. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. sd/- 01/04/2025 / TRUE COPY / 02/04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.M.P.(MD).No.14363 of 2024PALTO1 THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER EC & NDPS ACT CASES, MADURAI.2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,NIBCID,THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/s.G.PRABHU RAJADURAI, Advocate ( SR-3750[I] dated 02/04/2025 ) ORDER IN CRL MP(MD) No.14363 of 2024 IN CRL OP(MD) No.11341 of 2023 Date :01/04/2025SA/SAR. /02.04.2025/8P/5CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 8/8