A.Shridhar v. State Of Tamilnadu Represented By

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

The petitioner/A9 in Crime No.206 of 2023 registered under Sections 8 (c)r/w 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(c), 29(1) of NDPS Act and taken into custody on 12.05.2023 seeks bail.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that on 29.04.2023, the respondent had received information about 7 persons involved in possession and selling of contraband substances. A1 to A7 were taken into custody on 21.04.2023. It had been stated that from A1, 53 grams of Methamphetamine and 500grams of ganja was seized from A2. Thereafter, during interrogation, they had given information about this petitioner, whom the learned counsel states is a Police Constable working under the Police department. It is shameful that a constable working in the Police Department, whose duty is to protect the citizens from the influence of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances, is shown as an accused in a NDPS case. The earlier application seeking bail came up for consideration before my learned predecessor in Crl.O.P.No.15588 of 2023 and in the course of the said order, it had been observed as follows:

3. This Court had an opportunity of hearing 1/4

the conversation between A1 and this petitioner, recorded in a pen-drive From the conversation, it can be gathered that petitioner was giving instructions on how the drug offenders are operating in the city of Coimbatore. In fact, he spoke about how huge amounts can be earned in drug peddling. He demanded A1 to steal electronic gadgets used by the persons, who is involved in procurement and sale of LSD.

3.It is thus seen that the petitioner herein is actively involved with the activities of A1 and it is not known that who are the other accused the petitioner could have been similarly involved with. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that A8 had been granted bail and also stated that A8 is an Advocate. The learned Judge had considered the facts and taking the circumstances in which that particular accused was placed and after considering the other aspects, had granted bail. But that would not come to the assistance of this petitioner, who conversed with A1 and the conversation had also been heard by my learner predecessor. No arguments had been advanced that the same was made up for the purpose of the case. 2/4

4.Taking all these factors and even though this is the second bail application, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

sli 11.12.2023 3/4

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

sli 11.12.2023 4/4