Ajith @ Poovarasan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16/02/2024 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI Ajith @ Poovarasan ... Petitioner/Accused No.9 Vs The Inspector of Police, Mukkulam Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

In Crime No.19 of 2023.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balaji, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambiselvan, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.19 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused No.9, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.02.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 1/6

27A, 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No.19 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 17.02.2023, the defacto complainant and the other Police Officials attached with the respondent Police got a secret information in respect of selling ganja near Nethiya Iruppu and the officials visited the occurrence place. At that time, Maruti Swift Car was found in a suspicious manner and after seeing the Police party, the accused persons tried to escape from the car but the respondent Police secured six accused persons and recovered 26.235 kgm of Ganja. Hence, the present case was registered.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any allegation as alleged by the prosecution and the petitioner is A9 and no previous case is pending against the petitioner. Based on the confession statement of co-accused, he was falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the marriage has been fixed for the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 19.02.2023. Hence, he prays for grant bail to the petitioner.

2/6

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that call details are available and in fact, the petitioner contacted the accused No.4 and the contraband was seized from the accused No.1 to 6. Seized contraband is a commercial quantity and the petitioner is having nexus with the coaccused. He would further submit that no previous case is pending against the petitioner. Hence, he prays for dismissal of bail application. 5.Heard. Perused the materials available on record. 6.Admittedly, the petitioner is A9 and the incriminating material produced before this Court is that the petitioner has contacted A4 over phone for one time and except that accusation, there are no other materials produced before this Court.

Moreover, the entire seizure was only from A1 to A6 and based on their confession, the petitioner/A9 was implicated and the seized quantity is a commercial quantity. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since no other incriminating materials were produced before this Court except the call details connecting with the other persons and the petitioner has satisfied the twin conditions required under Section 37 of NPDS Act, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

3/6

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai, and on further conditions that:

(a)the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

(c)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; 4/6

(e) after the seizure procedure is over, the concerned Magistrate and the respondent Police are directed to comply with the guidelines enumerated under section 52(A) of NDPS Act and as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and Another ((2016) 3 SCC 379).

(f)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and; (g)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

sd/- 16/02/2024 / TRUE COPY / 16/02/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

5/6

SSB TO THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FOR EC AND NDPS ACT CASES, PUDUKOTTAI.

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MUKKULAM POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT, THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY.

THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1 CC to M/s.A.BALAJI, Advocate ( SR-2002[I] dated 16/02/2024 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.2462 of 2024 Date :16/02/2024 PKP/16.02.2024/ 6P/ 6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6