High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22945 of 2024 For Petitioners : Mr.S.Chandrasekar for Crl.O.P(MD) No.1271 of 2025 Mr.C.Senthil Murugan for Crl.O.P(MD) No.289 of 2025Mr.M.Solaisamy for Crl.O.P(MD) No.635 of 2025Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar for Crl.O.P(MD) No.1127 of 2025Mr.A.Ananda Raj for Crl.O.P(MD) No.199 of 2025Mr.R.L.Dhilipan Pandian for Crl.O.P(MD) No.22945 of 2024Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar for Crl.O.P(MD) No.1872 of 2025 For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor (in all the petitions) COMMON ORDERThe petitioners/accused, who were arrested and remanded to judicialcustody for the offences under Sections 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the'Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985' (hereinafter referred to as'NDPS Act' for brevity), and Section 111 of BNS, on the file of the respondent, seekbail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the Sub-Inspector of Police received5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22945 of 2024an information on 07.07.2024 at about 13.00 hours and based on the same, the policeparty reached the spot and they found a car in which five persons were seated. Theywere enquired and at that point of time, the Sub-Inspector of Police noticed thepresence of one Thirupathi, Manikkavasagam and Subash (A1 to A3), who areinvolved in ganja cases. On seeing the police, all the three fled away from the place ina two-wheeler without a registration number. In the meantime, the car that wasfound in the spot also escaped from there. On conducting a search in that place whichis under the bridge, 61 bundles were found and it was identified as ganja. The Sub-Inspector of Police passed on the information to the toll gates in order to trace the carin which five persons escaped. Insofar as the ganja bundles found in the spot, it wasseized and weighed in the presence of the Revenue Inspector and VillageAdministrative Officer and 122 kilograms of ganja was recovered. Thereafter, the FIRcame to be registered. 3. The further case of the prosecution is that the car which escaped fromthe scene of occurrence was intercepted near Samayapuram toll gate by the policeand A2 to A6 in the final report were present in the car and they were arrested andthey were found in possession of 2 kilograms of ganja. In the course of investigation,the involvement of the other accused persons came to light. The involvement of A136/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22945 of 2024came to light based on the confession of A9. A13 had met A1 and identified thebuyers for the contraband. Thus, the buyers are A9, A10 and A12. A11 arranged forthe shifting and unloading of the contraband. Based on the confession of A13, theinvolvement of A14 to A21 came to light since A13 spoke about A14 and thereafter,A14 spoke about A15 to A21. There are totally 21 accused persons in this case and thepetitioners have been arrayed as A2, A6, A12, A13, A15, A16 and A18.4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of A2 and A6 submitted thateven though the prosecution has come up with the case that the car was interceptedat Samayapuram toll gate and 2 kilograms of ganja was seized, there is absolutely nomaterial to show as to who really seized this ganja and who was in possession of 2kilograms of ganja. That apart, no police officer from Samayapuram has beenexamined on the side of the prosecution and straightaway it is stated that theSivagangai police arrested and also seized the 2 kilograms of ganja which allegationis not substantiated by any materials filed along with the police report. 5. Insofar as A12, A13, A15, A16 and A18 are concerned, it was submittedthat they have all been roped in this case based on the confession of the co-accusedand there was no recovery of contraband from any of these accused persons. It was7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22945 of 2024further submitted that the so called communication between the different accusedpersons has not been substantiated in terms of any phone call details. Insofar as A12is concerned, it was based on the confession of A1 and A9. Insofar as A13 isconcerned, it was based on the confession of A9 and in fact, A13 was inside the jailwhen a formal arrest was made in this case on the ground that the conspiracyhappened inside the jail. The detention order was passed against A13 and it was alsorevoked later. Insofar as A15 and A16 and A18 are concerned, it was submitted thatthey all came into the scene only based on the confession and nothing more. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor by relying uponthe counter-affidavit filed in these petitions submitted that insofar as A2 and A6 areconcerned, their identity has been established since they were travelling in the carwhich was found under the bridge from where they escaped and were intercepted atSamayapuram toll gate. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submittedthat the recovery of 2 kilograms of ganja from the car in which A2 to A6 travelled hasalso been established. Insofar as the other accused persons are concerned, the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are prima facie materials againstthem and insofar as A12, there are four previous cases for IPC offence. Insofar as A13,there are four previous cases for involvement in IPC offence. For A15, A16 and A18,8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22945 of 2024there is one previous case under the NDPS Act. Hence, it was contended that all theaccused persons joined together and had a common intention in furtherance of whichthe ganja was procured from Andhra Pradesh and was brought in by a vehiclebearing registration number of Andhra Pradesh and was attempted to be smuggled. 7. This Court has carefully considered the submission made on either sideand the materials available on record.8. This Court has to first deal with the case of A2 and A6 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1271 and 199 of 2025. These two accused persons had travelled along with A3, A4and A5 in the car bearing registration number of Andhra Pradesh. This car wasidentified by the police on the spot under the bridge and after the car escaped fromthe spot, the car number was transmitted to all the toll gates and the car wasultimately intercepted at Samayapuram Toll gate. Even though an attempt was madeto contend that the recovery of 2 kilograms of ganja is highly doubtful, the same isnot very material since 122 kilograms of ganja has been seized from the spot wherethis car was identified and the persons who were travelling in the car, obviously, willhave the knowledge and they can all be roped in under Section 35 of the NDPS Act.Therefore, even though there are no previous cases against A2 and A6 in Tamil9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22945 of 2024Nadu, these two persons belonged to Andhra Pradesh and there are no mandatoryviolations pointed out insofar as these two accused persons are concerned. Hence, thetwin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act has not been satisfied. 9. This Court has to now take up the case of the other accused persons inCrl.O.P.(MD) Nos.22945 of 2024, 289 of 2025, 635 of 2025, 1127 of 2025 and 1872 of2025 which involves A18, A13, A16, A12 and A15.10. The involvement of A14 to A21 was not known till A13 was arrested.The starting point was the arrest of A13 based on the confession of A9. He was insidethe jail in Crime No.301 of 2024 pertaining to Sivagangai Taluk Police Station. At thattime, he said to be in contact with A9 and the confession of A9 brought in theinvolvement of A13. Hence, A13 was ultimately arrested on 14.10.2024. Subsequently,he was detained under Act 14 of 1982 and the detention order was later revoked.Thereafter, based on the confession of A13, the involvement of A12 came to light.According to the case of the prosecution, A1 met A13 and asked him to identifybuyers for the contraband and accordingly, A13 identified A9, A10 and A12. A11 wasassisting in the shifting and unloading of the contraband and he had arranged A14 toA21 for unloading.10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22945 of 202411. There is no recovery from any of these accused persons and all of themhave been roped in based on the confession of the co-accused and nothing more. Inview of the same, they have strong arguable case and this Court also takes intoconsideration the long incarceration suffered by these accused persons. 12. This Court is also taking note of previous cases against these accusedpersons. This Court also takes into consideration the fact that the investigation hasbeen completed and the police report has been filed and the case is now pending inC.C.No.1 of 2025 before the Special Court, Pudukottai, and hence, this Court isinclined to grant bail to the petitioners/A18, A13, A16, A12 and A15 subject to thefollowing conditions: 13. Accordingly, the petitioners/A18, A13, A16, A12 and A15 in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.22945 of 2024, 289 of 2025, 635 of 2025, 1127 of 2025 and 1872 of 2025 areordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupeesten thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of thePrincipal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai and on further conditionsthat:-11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22945 of 2024[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and LeftThumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate mayobtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book toensure their identity. [b] the petitioners shall report before the Trial Courtduring every date of hearing without fail; [c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witnesseither during investigation or trial. [d] the petitioners shall not abscond either duringinvestigation or trial. [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learnedMagistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actionagainst the petitioner in accordance with law as if theconditions have been imposed and the petitioners released onbail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laiddown by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State ofKerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can beregistered under Section 269 of B.N.S.2023. 12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22945 of 202414. In the result, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners/A2and A6 on bail and accordingly, the Criminal Original Petitions in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1271 and 199 of 2025 are dismissed. Crl.O.P(MD) Nos.22945 of 2024, 289 of 2025,635 of 2025, 1127 of 2025 and 1872 of 2025 are allowed. sd/- 05/02/2025 / TRUE COPY / 12/02/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar () Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. PKNTO1 THE PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGEFOR NDPS ACT CASES, PUDUKOTTAI.2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KUNDRAKUDI POLICE STATION,SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE,BORSTAL SCHOOL, PUDUKOTTAI.4 THE OFFICER INCHARGE,DISTRICT PRISON, PUDUKOTTAI.5 THE SUPERINTENDENTCENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI.13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22945 of 20246 THE OFFICER INCHARGE,SUB JAIL, SIVAGANGAI.7 THE SUPERINTENDENTCENTRAL PRISON, PUDUKOTTAI.8 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/s.M.SOLAISAMY, Advocate ( SR-1403[I] dated 05/02/2025 )+1 CC to M/s.S.CHANDRASEKAR, Advocate ( SR-1385[I] dated 05/02/2025 ) ORDER IN Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.22945 of 2024 and 199, 289, 635, 1127, 1271and 1872 of 2025 Date :05/02/2025 SS/SAR- /12/02/2025/ 14P/11CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 14/14