Crl.OP.(MD)No.14846 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Reserved on: 16.10.2025 Pronounced on: 23.10.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.14846 of 2025 1.Manikandan 2. Jegan ...Petitioners Vs. The Union of India, Through the Jr. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai. (NCB F.No.48/1/12/2023/NCB/MDS) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Sec.483 of BNSS, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in connection with C.C.No.65 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Special Court for NDPS Act cases at Pudukottai in NCB F.No. 48/1/12/2023/NCB/MDS on the file of the respondent. For Petitioners: Mr. V. Raghavachari Senior Counsel for Mr. R.Rajaselvan For Respondent: Mr. C. Arul Vadivel @ Sekar Special Public Prosecutor for NCB Cases 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.(MD)No.14846 of 2025 ORDER The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to enlarge the petitioners / Accused Nos.3 and 4 on Bail in connection with C.C.No.65 of 2024, on the file of the Principal Special Court for NDPS Act cases at Pudukottai in NCB F.No. 48/1/12/2023/NCB/MDS. The petitioners are under judicial custody for more than twenty-five months without trial reaching completion and the prolonged detention amounts to pre-trial punishment and infringes personal liberty granted under Article 21. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.08.2023 ganja weighing about 423 kilograms was seized from a Mahindra Bolero Vehicle in Ramanathapuram District and three accused were apprehended at the spot and two among them are the petitioners herein who is arrayed as A3 and A4. 3. The contention of the petitioners Manikandan and Jegan is that they were falsely implicated and targeted by the respondent. They were not found in possession of any contraband. In the absence of substantive recovery, the respondent relying on the suspicion and statements of co-accused. The only charge against the petitioners is that they were travelling in vehicle, such 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.(MD)No.14846 of 2025 allegation by itself cannot establish conscious possession, trafficking or conspiracy. The petitioners have undergone prolonged incarceration of twenty- five months. The petitioners had already filed bail applications and the same were dismissed with an expectation that the trial would be completed. However, there was direction to complete earlier, but the same was not completed and the delay would constitute material change of circumstances. The A1 was granted bail by the Special Court and the petitioners are similarly placed, is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. Hence the present bail application. 4. The respondent had filed objections stating that the petitioners had admitted the guilt by giving voluntary statements that they carrying 200 ganja packets kept in 14 white colour gunny bags concealed inside the vehicle. The Trial Court has posted the case on 28.10.2025 for continuation of chief examination of PW8. The contraband involved is commercial quantity. The petitioners are accused No.3 and 4 and the petitioners were in Mahindra Bolero pickup vehicle along with A2 with 423 kgs ganja and the petitioners are having conscious possession of ganja. Further the petitioners / A3 and A4 along with A2 had unloaded the ganja from the truck and loaded in Mahindra Bolero pickup vehicle. While the vehicle was intercepted the petitioners / A3 and 4 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.(MD)No.14846 of 2025 were present in the vehicle along with A2. Further the contraband was recovered from the A2, A3 and A4, hence there is a presumption of culpable mental state as per Section 35 of NDPS Act, hence the respondent opposed the present bail application. 5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the charge sheet has been filed and Trial have started and the Trial would be completed in couple of months. Further submitted that the mobile number of the petitioner was located within the vicinity of occurrence and opposed to grant bail. 6. The primary contention of the petitioners is that the Accused No.1 was granted bail by the Trial Court itself. In fact, the Accused No.1 had approached the Supreme Court for bail and the bail was dismissed on 04.02.2025, however it was observed that if the Trial is not completed within three months, then liberty was granted to the Accused No.1 for filing the bail application afresh. When the trial was not completed within three months, the said 1st accused had filed bail petition based on the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Trial Court had considered the same and granted bail. The respondent had not filed any appeal against the same. When the trial has not been completed even 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.(MD)No.14846 of 2025 after three months, thereafter further three months and one month was granted, then also the trial was not completed. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be considered on the basis of parity. 7. However, under section 37 of NDPS Act it is stated that no person is entitled to bail provided the test prescribed under the section ought to be satisfied. The said section is extracted hereunder: [37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 3[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless— (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.(MD)No.14846 of 2025 is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub- section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.] 8. The section states to issue notice to the Public Prosecutor. This Court had issued notice to the Public Prosecutor, who in turn had filed objections and opposed to grant bail. Hence the said condition is satisfied. 9. The section further states if the Public Prosecutor opposes the bail, then the court ought to satisfy itself the twin test, (i) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail In the present case the charge against the petitioners is that the petitioners were in possession of the contraband. Infact the petitioners were arrested along with contraband which the petitioners / A3 and A4 were in possession along with A2. The allegation against A3 is he is the driver of the vehicle, but the A3 denies stating he does not know driving at all and he has no driving license, but 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.(MD)No.14846 of 2025 the said issue ought to be considered in Trial. As stated supra when the petitioners are found with possession of contraband then the petitioners fail the first test. In such circumstances, the bar under section 37(b)(ii) is applicable in this case and the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 10. Further, the Court perused the chief examination of PW1 wherein it is stated that the Accused No.2 Naina Mohamed had stated that both Accused No.1 Parimaladass and Accused No.2 Naina Mohamed both earlier smuggled ganja for two times. Also stated the accused 1, 3 and 4 that is Parimaladoss, Manikandan, Jagen respectively had stated that they brought the ganja from Andhra Pradesh and changed the goods in another vehicle at Viralimalai. While changing the goods the A2, A3 and A4 was in the scene of occurrence. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “iedh KfkJ jdJ thf;F%yj;jpy; ghpkshjh\; cld; NrHe;J fQ;rh flj;jy; njhopy; nra;J tUtjhfTk; ,jw;F Kd;ghf 2 Kiw ,Nj khjphp fQ;rh flj;jpajhfTk; jfty; njhptpj;jhH. NkYk; kzpfz;ld;> n[fd;> ghpkshjh\; Mfpa midtUk; jq;fsJ thf;F%yj;jpy; ifg;gw;wg;gl;l fQ;rhit Me;jpuhtpypUe;J flj;jp te;J tpuhypkiy Rq;frhtbf;F mUfpy; itj;J b.vd;.81 E 6961 vd;w vz; nfhz;l kNfe;jpuh nghypNuh gpf;fg; tz;bapy; Vw;wp mjpuhk;gl;bzk; topahf ,yq;iff;F flj;j ,Ug;gjhf $wp xg;Gf;nfhz;ldH. ” 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.(MD)No.14846 of 2025 From the chief examination, it is seen that the petitioners are spotted in the scene of occurrence. 11. For the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition for bail is dismissed. 23.10.2025 TMG TO 1. Jr. Intelligence Officer, Union of India, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai. 2.The Special Public Prosecutor for NCB cases, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 3.Principal Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Pudukottai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.(MD)No.14846 of 2025 S.SRIMATHY,J TMG ORDER IN CRL OP(MD)No.14846 of 2025 Date : 23.10.2025 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis