Rajesh v. The Inspector of Police, Dhadikompu Police Station, Dindigul District

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )Date : 27/01/2025PRESENTThe HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESHCRL OP(MD). Nos.23158, 20115 of 2024 and 16 of 2025Rajesh ... Petitioner/Accused in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.23158 of 2024Amulraj... Petitioner/Accused in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.20115 of 2024Jeevanatham ... Petitioner/Accused in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16 of 2025VsThe Inspector of Police, Dhadikompu Police Station, Dindigul District. Crime No.324/2023... Respondent/Complainantin all petitionsFor Petitioners : Mr.R.Venkatesan, Advocate.(in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.23158 and 20115 of 2024) For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balaji, Advocate(in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16 of 2025)For Respondent: Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor(in all CRL OP's)1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis PETITIONS FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSSCOMMON PRAYER :-To enlarge the petitioners on bail in C.C.No.133/2024 on the file of the PrincipalSpecial Court for Trial of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai in Cr.No.324 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police on such terms.COMMON ORDER : The Court made the following common order :-The petitioners / Accused, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custodyon 15.11.2023 15.11.2023 and 27.10.2023 respectively and were facing trial inC.C.No.133/2024 on the file of the Principal Special Court for Trial of Narcotic Drugsand Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai in Cr.No.324 of 2023, on the file ofthe respondent police, for offences under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 of NDPSAct, seek bail.2. The case of the prosecution is that the Sub Inspector of Police received asecret information on 26.10.2023 at about 20.15 hours to the effect that the accusedpersons are in possession of contraband. Based on the same, it was recorded in thegeneral diary and informed to the superior officers and after getting permission, thePolice team went to the scene of occurrence. They spotted a two-wheeler with twopersons travelling in the same (Accused Nos.1 and 2). The two-wheeler wasintercepted and at that point of time, Accused No.2 managed to escape and AccusedNo.1 was surrounded by the Police. On being informed about his right and AccusedNo.1 having waived his right, search was conducted in the presence of the Village2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Administrative Officer and the Village Assistant. 11.500 kgs of ganja was seized fromthe bag which was kept in the front portion of the scooter. On confession of AccusedNo.1, Police team went to his house and conducted a search and 10 kgs of ganja wasrecovered from the house. Thus, a total of 21.500 kgs of ganja was seized along withthe two-wheeler used by Accused No.1 and mobile phone of Accused No.1 was alsoseized. That apart, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was seized from Accused No.1. 3. The further case of the prosecution is that on 15.11.2023, Accused No.2 wasarrested and he was found in possession of 1.500 kgs of ganja. His identity wasestablished through confession of Accused No.1. Similarly, Accused No.3 wasarrested on the same day and he was found in possession of 2 kgs of ganja. Thespecific case of the prosecution is that Accused No.3 is the wholesaler and he haspurchased ganja from Accused No.4, who belongs to Andhrapradesh. In turn, Accused No.3 has handed over the ganja to Accused Nos.1 and 2 to be sold on retailbasis. Thus, it is alleged that all the accused persons formed a chain and wereactively involved in drug trafficking. As a result, the individual recoveries made fromthe other two accused persons was also added to the recovery that was made fromAccused No.1 and the case of the prosecution is that a total of 25 kgs of ganja isinvolved in this case. 4. There are totally four accused persons in this case and the petitioners have3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis been arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 3. Accused No.4 is still absconding in this case. 5. The learned counsel appearing for Accused No.1 submitted that the seizureof the contraband is said to have taken place on 26.10.2024 in the presence of theVillage Administrative Officer and Village Assistant and whereas, the materialsavailable shows that the signature has been assigned by the Village AdministrativeOfficer only on 27.10.2024. Hence, the very recovery of ganja from Accused No.1 isquestionable. The learned counsel further submitted that a false case has been foistedagainst Accused No.1, since there are some previous cases against Accused No.1. 6. The learned counsel appearing for Accused Nos.2 and 3 submitted thatindividual recoveries are said to have been made from Accused Nos.2 and 3 and theywere arrested only on 15.11.2023. The learned counsel submitted that there wasabsolutely no material to connect the recovery that was made from Accused Nos.2and 3 to that of Accused No.1 except the confession of Accused No.1. The learnedcounsel further submitted that the very arrest of Accused No.3 is questionable, sincethe arrest is said to have taken place at 04.00 p.m., on 15.11.2023 and whereas, thereare photographs which clearly shows that the arrest had taken place even in themorning at 06.13 a.m. Even if the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, at the best, only individual recovery from Accused Nos.2 and 3 can be taken into considerationand by no stretch, it can be added along with the recovery made from Accused No.1.4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis In such an event, Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply to Accused Nos.2 and 3. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor apart from reiterating the standthat has been taken in the counter affidavit submitted that the recovery from AccusedNo.1 has been clearly established to the tune of 21.500 kgs of ganja. He furthersubmitted that the police report has already been filed and the materials clearly makeout a prima facie case against Accused No.1. He further submitted that the signatureof the Village Administrative Officer on 27.10.2023 cannot be doubted, since therecovery was done from two places insofar as Accused No.1 is concerned and itstarted on 26.10.2023 and it was completed only on 27.10.2023. Hence, the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor submitted that a strong case has been establishedagainst Accused No.1 and that Accused No.1 already has twelve previous casesunder the NDPS Act. 8. Insofar as Accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the learned Additional PublicProsecutor submitted that the alleged illegal arrest is argued based on the somephotographs which cannot be taken into consideration for the present. He furthersubmitted that all the accused persons formed as a chain and they were involved indrug trafficking and therefore, Section 34 of IPC will clearly come into play and theindividual recovery of contraband from Accused Nos.2 and 3 will also form part ofthe recovery made from Accused No.1 and thus, the total recovery of 25 kgs of ganja5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis has to be attributed to all the accused persons. He further submitted that AccusedNo.4 is still absconding in this case and he belongs to Andhrapradesh and he was theone, who supplied the ganja to Accused No.3.9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that there arenine previous cases against Accused No.2, out of which, four cases are under theNDPS Act. He further submitted that there are nine previous cases against AccusedNo.3 and all the cases are under the NDPS Act. 10. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either sideand the materials available on record. 11. Insofar as Accused No.1 is concerned, this Court finds that there are primafacie materials to establish the recovery of 21.500 kgs of ganja from Accused No.1.Insofar as Accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, Accused No.2 is said to have travelledalong with Accused No.1 in the two-wheeler and on seeing the Police, he escapedfrom the scene of occurrence. The identity of Accused No.2 is sought to beestablished by the police based on the confession of Accused No.1. The individualrecovery that was made from Accused No.2 was 1.500 kgs. Insofar as Accused No.3is concerned, what is available is the confession of Accused No.3 and also theconfession of accused No.1 and it is an admitted case that two kgs of ganja was seizedfrom Accused No.3. It is thus clear that insofar as Accused Nos.2 and 3 are6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis concerned, there is individual seizure of ganja and they are sought to be roped inbased on the confession of the co-accused and the prosecution was not able to collectany materials in terms of any phone calls made between the accused persons duringthe entire transaction. Thus, there is a strong arguable case for Accused Nos.2 and 3to question the recovery made from them from being added along with the recoverymade from Accused No.1. This Court also takes into consideration the previous casesagainst Accused Nos.2 and 3.12. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to enlargeAccused No.1 / petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16 of 2025 on bail, since the twinconditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act has not been satisfied. Insofar asaccused No.2 and 3 / petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.23158 and 20115 of 2024 areconcerned, the individual seizure made from these two accused persons are only1.500 kgs and 2 kgs of ganja and except the confession of co-accused, no othermaterial is available and hence, the compliance of Section 37 of the NDPS Act maynot strictly apply to Accused Nos.2 and 3. This is only a prima facie finding of thisCourt based on the materials available and it will not have any bearing while the trialCourt deals with the case on merits. 13. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners inCrl.O.P.(MD).Nos.23158 and 20115 of 2024 subject to the following conditions.7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

#14. Accordingly, the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.23158 and 20115 of 2024are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) each, with two sureties, each for a like sum to thesatisfaction of the learned Principal Special Judge for Trial of Narcotic Drugs andPsychotropic Substances 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 in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.23158 and 20115 of 2024 shall reportbefore the trial Court daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders, apart from the dates onwhich the case is posted for hearing.[c] the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.23158 and 20115 of 2024 shall not tamperwith evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.[d] the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.23158 and 20115 of 2024 shall notabscond either during investigation or trial.[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/TrialCourt is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance withlaw as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.23158 and 20115 of 2024 released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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 BNS, 2023.15. In the result, Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.23158 and 20115 of 2024 stand allowed andCrl.O.P.(MD).No.16 of 2025 stand dismissed. sd/- 27/01/2025/ TRUE COPY / 27/01/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TSG TO1 THE JUDGE,PRINCIPAL SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANES ACT CASES, MADURAI.2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI.3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DHADIKOMPU POLICE STATION,DINDIGUL DISTRICT.4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ORDER INCRL OP(MD). Nos.23158, 20115 of 2024 and 16 of 2025 Date :27/01/2025RS/IT/SAR-(27.01.2025) 10P 5CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/202310/10