Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14754 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 09.09.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD). No.14754 of 2025 Sugumaran ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Chekkanurani Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.398 of 2023) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jagadeesh Pandian For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.398 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused No.3, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.10.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14754 of 2025 r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.398 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.10.2023 at about 06.00 PM, based on the secret information, the Sub-Inspector of police along with the police party performed the patrol duty. They intercepted vehicles bearing Reg.No.TN 10 X 0526 Toyota Innova car along with a Royal Enfield bearing Reg.No.TN 02 BK 6239, which were coming from Solavanthan to Thirumangalam. The vehicles were detained by the police authority wherein four persons namely Suresh, Sevanthu, Sugumaran and Kasimayan were caught red-handed with 44 kg of ganja by the respondent police. Thereafter, six persons were arrayed as accused and the petitioner is the Accused No.3. 3.The case of the petitioner is that as per the athachi provided by the prosecution case, there was no recovery from the petitioner / A3 and he was present merely in the two-wheeler and no contraband was recovered from his possession. Further, the petitioner does not have any knowledge about the contraband which was recovered from the co-accused. Hence, there are real reasons to believe that the petitioner was not guilty of the offence and the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act is also satisfied. Further, the investigation is 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14754 of 2025 completed and the charge sheet is filed and the petitioner is in custody for more than 1 year and 10 months. 4. Further, the petitioner had already filed four bail petitions. In the last bail application, this Court has directed for split up trial. In spite of the same, the trial is moving in snail pace. Hence, the present bail application is filed. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has not recovered any contraband from the petitioner. As per the athachi, it was recovered from A1. The petitioner was riding the two- wheeler and the contraband was in the car. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner was not in possession of contraband. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submitted that it is recorded in the earlier bail application that even though the petitioner was riding the motorbike, he was the pilot in front of the Innova car and the bike belongs to A1, which is prima facie material to show the involvement of the petitioner. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14754 of 2025 7. On perusing the athachi which was produced by the respondent, it is seen that there is no signature of the petitioner in the athachi. On the other hand, the petitioner has not denied riding the bike along with the car. The prima facie fact that the bike belongs to the A1 would establish the prima facie involvement. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner ought to be rejected. 8. The next contention of the petitioner is that in spite of the split up trial was ordered by this Court, the respondent has not taken any steps to split up the trial and the petitioner is inside the prison for nearly two years. However, the respondent submitted that as per the order of this Court, the trial was split up vide order dated 09.05.2025 as against Accused No.6 and C.C.No. 156 of 2024 was assigned. The mother case involving the other accused is C.C.No.138 of 2024 and the case is posted for trial. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the respondent failed to split up the trial also is incorrect. Further, it is seen that five accused are facing the Trial in C.C.No.138 of 2024, wherein 12 witnesses are there. Therefore, if time is granted to complete the trial within a period of four months, the same would be suffice and will meet the ends of justice. 9. Therefore, the Trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14754 of 2025 period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above said observations, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 09.09.2025 TMG TO 1.The Inspector of Police, Chekkanurani Police Station, Madurai District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 3.Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14754 of 2025 S.SRIMATHY, J. TMG ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14754 of 2025 Date : 09.09.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis