Suriyamoorthy v. The State Rep By

Crl.O.P.No.17210 of 2024 T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

This petition has been filed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in CC No. 339 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Special Judge for EC and NDPS Cases, Chennai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.11.2023, based on the secret information the respondent police went to the scene of occurrence i.e., nearby Bharat Petrol Bunk, Anakapudur Service Road. At that time, on seeing the respondent police the petitioner tried to escape from the place, however the respondent police caught hold the petitioner and on search him, the respondent police found 800 kgs of Methaphetamine and 5 kgs of Amepthetamine. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely implicated in this case as if he possessed the contraband and also he is languishing in jail from 17.11.2023. Further, he stated that, in

fact, the petitioner was taken from light house at Marina, Chennai on 16.11.2023 at around 7 p.m., by the respondent for an enquiry by mistaken identity, during that time the petitioner was using a mobile in Airtel 97890 76372, the tower location is the proof to substantiate the contention of the petitioner . But, on 17.11.2023, at 6 a.m., the search was conducted at the petitioner's house and also threatened the petitioner to agree the case otherwise they will implead the petitioner's son as a party to the FIR and thereafter the FIR was registered against the petitioner at 12.30 hrs. Further, two samples were sent to the lab, after five months from the date of occurrence and also as per the lab report, one sample was found to be not a narcotic substance it was only an sodium glutamate and other sample is methaphetamine. Hence, he prays to allow this petition.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submits that 800 grams of methaphetamine was seized from the accused person which is commercial quantity. Hence, he raised objection to grant bail.

5. Considering the fact that the contraband seized from the petitioner is commercial quantity. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested one day before the filing of FIR i.e., on 16.11.2023 and to substantiate his claim he filed the tower location of the petitioner. This Court is of the view that it is a matter for trial. Hence, this Court is not inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

22.07.2024 pbl

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

pbl Crl.O.P.Nos.17210 of 2024 22.07.2024