Madras High CourtCRL OP/2883/2024disposed of

Murugan v. State Rep.By

2024-02-13Honourable Mrs Justice T.V.Thamilselvi4 pages

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.07.2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 8 (c), 20 (b) (ii)(C), 25, 29(i) of NDPS Act in Crime No.50 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner along with other accused were found in possession of 240 kgs of Ganja without any valid license. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no iota of truth in the complaint and he is no way connected with the said offence. He also submitted that he has not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police and the contraband has not recovered from this petitioner. He further submitted that the investigation is almost completed and he is ready to abide by any stringent conditions imposed on

him. In spite of the direction given by this Court, the trial has not yet been completed. However, there is no officer is deputed and the petitioner has been suffering incarceration from 22.07.2022. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that totally there are nine accused involved in this case and the petitioner is arrayed as A8. He further submitted that NBW is pending against A9. He also submitted that there is one previous case similar in nature and the trial is also not yet completed, and if he is released on bail, he would tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel and also considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner, and there is possibility of tampering the witnesses and hampering the investigation. Furthermore, the petitioner is having previous case similar in nature, this Court is not inclined to grant bail

to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

6. Even though no regular presiding officer is appointed, who is incharge of the trial Court is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

13.02.2024 rri T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rri 13.02.2024