BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on 30.01.2025 Delivered on 03.02.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH CRL.OP(MD).Nos.22065, 21981 and 22781 of 2024 & 425 and 1500 of 2025 Rata Vijay Babu ... Petitioner / A10 in Crl.OP(MD).No.22065 of 2024 Niranjan Raja ... Petitioner / A1 in Crl.OP(MD).No.21981 of 2024 V.Saravana Kumar ... Petitioner / A2 in Crl.OP(MD).No.22781 of 2024 Mahalakshmi ... Petitioner / A3 in Crl.OP(MD).No.425 of 2025 1.Sivakumar Moyya 2.Dalmuluri Durga Malleshwar Rao ... Petitioners / A8 and A9 in Crl.OP(MD).No.1500 of 2025 Vs. The State rep by, The Inspector of Police, Uthamapalayam Police Station, Theni District. (Crime No.219 of 2024) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ... Respondent/Complainant in all cases COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 483 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioners on bail in connection with the Crime No.219 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.K.Navaneetharaja in Crl.OP(MD).No.22065 of 2024 Mr.M.Maran in Crl.OP(MD).No.21981 of 2024 for M/s.B.Bhagawathi in Crl.OP(MD).No.22781 of 2024 Mr.K.Siva Tharshana in Crl.OP(MD).No.425 of 2025 Mr.S.Balaji in Crl.OP(MD).No.1500 of 2025 For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi, (in all cases) Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON ORDER The petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 8 to 10, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) of the 'Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985' (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act' for brevity) in Crime No.534 of 2022, on the file of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent police, seek bail. 2. When these petitions came up for hearing on 29.01.2025, this Court passed the following order: “The case of the prosecution is that on 15.07.2024 at about 6.45 a.m., the Sub-Inspector of police received an information about the possession of ganja and this was entered in the general diary and informed to the superior officer. Thereafter, a police team went to the spot and they found four male and two female persons with a gunny bag. They were informed about their rights and after completing the formalities, the gunny bag was searched and a total of 21.600 kg of ganja was seized. The further case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 gave a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- to A3 and A4. A3 and A4, in turn, purchased the contraband from A8 and A9 who belonged to Andhra Pradesh. On coming to know of the same, the police team visited Andhra Pradesh and arrested A8 and A9. At the time of arrest, A8 was found in possession of 8.450 kg of ganja and A9 was found in possession of 5.500 kg of ganja. They made a confession to the effect that they had purchased the ganja from A10 in huge quantities and that they used to sell the same in Tamil Nadu. Accordingly, A10 was identified and was arrested on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis same day and 8.580 kg of ganja was seized. A8 to A10 were brought to Tamil Nadu by means of a transit warrant and they were produced before the concerned court and were remanded to judicial custody. 2. The specific case of the prosecution is that all the accused persons joined together and in the course of the same transaction and in furtherance of their common intention, the seizure that was made from the accused persons must be put together and accordingly the prosecution claims that the present case involves 44.13 kg of ganja which is a commercial quantity. 3. These bail petitions have been filed by A1 to A3 and A8 to A10. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of A1 submitted that there is violation of Rule 3 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). To substantiate the same, the learned counsel relied upon the FIR that was registered in this case and contended that after the seizure of the contraband, no steps were taken to properly secure the contraband and whereas it was merely tied with a rope. It was further submitted that A1 to A6 were arrested on 15.07.2024 and they were produced before the learned Magistrate on 16.07.2024. However, the sample was taken before the learned Magistrate only on 25.07.2024 and thereafter, the sample was received by the RFSL only on 29.08.2024. Hence, there is absolutely no explanation as to what happened during the interregnum period and who was in control of the contraband that was seized. The learned counsel submitted that A1 is a college student and that he has no previous case and he has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis suffered incarceration from 15.07.2024. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of A2 also made similar submissions by adopting the stand taken by A1. The learned counsel submitted that A2 is a B.E. graduate who is working in an IT company and there are no previous cases against him and that a false case has been foisted against A2. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of A3 also adopted the above arguments. He submitted that A3 is a woman and nothing was recovered from A3. He further submitted that A3 has two children who are aged about 6 and 9 years respectively and that there are no previous cases against this accused person. The learned counsel further submitted that the husband of A3 is bedridden for more than two years and he has to be taken care. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of A8 and A9 submitted that these persons came into the picture after nearly one month after the FIR was registered in this case. It was further submitted that 8.450 kg is said to have been recovered from A8 and 5.5 kg is said to have been recovered from A9 and there are absolutely no materials to show as to whether such recovery was informed to the concerned Magistrate in Vijayanagaram and the so called recovery comes to light only when these accused persons were produced before the Special Court in Tamil Nadu. Hence, the very recovery of the contraband from A8 and A9 is highly doubtful. It was further submitted that the involvement of A8 and A9 was based on the confession of the co- accused and except the confession, there is no material to connect A8 and A9 in this case https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and even the phone call details between the accused persons has not been provided along with the police report that has been filed before the Court below. The learned counsel submitted that both A8 and A9 are college students and there are no bad antecedents to these petitioners. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of A10 submitted that this accused was added based on the so-called confession of A8 and A9. It was submitted that there was absolutely no material to connect A1 to A6 with this petitioner and the case of the prosecution hinges upon the confession of A8 and A9. Even the so-called recovery of 8.500 kg of ganja is highly doubtful since there is no material to show that the recovery of contraband was informed to the local Magistrate before whom A10 was produced and the recovery of ganja for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis first time was only informed to the Special Court in Tamil Nadu after A8 to A10 were produced before the concerned Court. It was submitted that there are no materials in terms of any phone call records to connect A10 with the other accused persons. The learned counsel submitted that there are no previous cases against A10 and A10 has suffered incarceration in this case from 13.08.2024. 9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no violation of Rule 3 of the Rules. It was submitted that the contraband was available in a gunny bag which was in control of A1 to A6 and this gunny bag was tightly closed/secured by tying it with a rope and the same is perfectly in compliance with Rule 3(3) of the Rules. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A1 to A6 were arrested in this case on 15.07.2024 along with 21.600 kg of ganja. They were produced on 16.07.2024 and on the same day, the contraband that was seized was also produced before the Court. The Learned Magistrate directed the contraband to be kept in malcana. The contraband that was seized was produced before the learned Magistrate on 25.07.2024 and samples were taken on the same day. There was a delay from 25.07.2024 to 23.08.2024 on the part of the Magistrate Court in not sending the sample to the Special Court. It was submitted that this delay cannot be attributed or put against the respondent police. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that after the sample reached the Special Court, immediately on 23.08.2024, a requisition was made for sending it for analysis. The sample https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis was ultimately sent to the RFSL lab and it was received on 29.08.2024. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor therefore submitted that there was absolutely no delay on the part of the respondent police in sending the sample and the delay that was caused by the Court cannot be put against the prosecution. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that A8 to A10 were arrested on 13.08.2024 and the contraband was also seized from each of those accused persons. It was submitted that A8 to A10 were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vijayanagaram, along with the contraband that was seized. A transit warrant was issued and these accused persons were brought to Madurai and were produced before the Special Court. At that point of time, the contraband that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis was seized from A8 to A10 was also produced before the Court. The sample was drawn before the Special Court and thereafter it was sent to the RFSL along with the samples that was already taken from the contraband that was seized from A1 to A6 and it was received on 29.08.2024. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that LW15 to LW18 speak about the phone call details and the CDR particulars are also available and the same is yet to be presented before the Court since the certificate as required under the Evidence Act is awaited. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also produced the phone call details with respect to the communication made between the accused persons during the relevant period. 11. Insofar as the seizure of the contraband from A8 to A10, the learned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Additional Public Prosecutor sought for time to produce the necessary materials to substantiate that such a seizure was intimated before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vijayanagaram and that it was not produced for the first time before the Special Court as was attempted to be projected on the side of the accused persons. 12. To produce the relevant materials, post this case 30.01.2025. 3. The matter was taken up for hearing today. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced the transit warrant issued by the Judicial Magistrate at Vijayanagaram and also the affidavit filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kumuli Police Station, before the Magistrate seeking for transit warrant. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also filed the arrest memo of each of the accused person. By relying upon all these documents, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the seizure of ganja from A8 to A10 was properly mentioned in the affidavit and it was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis produced before the Court while the accused persons were produced after the arrest. Thereafter, the ganja that was seized was brought to the Special Court and samples were taken and it was sent to RFSL along with the samples that was already taken from the contraband that was seized from A1 to A6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the CDR details are already available and the investigation officer is in the process of collecting the relevant certificate and once the certificate is obtained, it will be filed along with the certificate before the Court. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that there is one previous case against A10 which also involves commercial quantity of 110 kilograms pending investigation at Rajavommangi Police Station. Accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no statutory violation in this case and the twin requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act has not been satisfied and hence, these petitions are liable to be dismissed by this Court. 4. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. 5. In the instant case, four separate seizures have been made https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis by the respondent police. The first seizure of 21.600 kilograms of ganja was made while arresting A1 to A6 on 15.07.2024. The second seizure was made from A8 to the tune of 8.450 kilograms of ganja. The third seizure was done from A9 who possessed 5.500 kilograms of ganja. The fourth seizure was from A10 to the tune of 8.580 kilograms of ganja. The specific case of the prosecution is that all the accused persons acted on a collective understanding and therefore, the four individual seizures were brought together and the total quantity of the contraband has been shown as 44.13 kilograms of ganja. 6. The involvement of A8 to A10 could not have come to surface without the confession of the co-accused who were arrested on 15.07.2024. There was no need for the investigation officer along with the police team to go all the way to Andhra Pradesh to secure A8 to A10 without those details furnished by the other accused persons. In view of the same, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the prosecution has brought this case within the scope of Section 34 of IPC since the accused persons have acted in furtherance of a common intention. The money was given by A1 and A2 to A3 and A4 and A3 and A4 in turn purchased the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis contraband from A8 and A9 and they in turn had purchased it from A10. The involvement of A10 came to light only based on the confession of A8 and A9. Thus the joint involvement of the accused persons has been prima facie established and the ganja had entered Tamil Nadu only from Andhra Pradesh with the help of A8 to A10. 7. Insofar as A1 to A3, the gunny bag containing 21.600 kilograms of ganja was in control of A1 to A6. It was submitted that Rule 3 of the Rules has not been complied with and therefore, such mandatory violation enures in favour of the accused persons. Rule 3 (3) provides for proper packing of the bag to ensure that no tampering take place. In the instant case, the materials placed before this Court shows that the gunny bag was properly tied with a rope at the top of the bag and was properly secured and that is the best that can be done insofar as the gunny bag is concerned. Hence, there is no violation of the Rule. 8. The next issue is with regard to the delay in sending the contraband that was seized to the Court and the further delay in sending the samples to the laboratory. 9. The materials placed before this Court shows that 21.600 kilograms of ganja was seized from the accused persons (A1 to A6) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis when they were arrested on 15.07.2024. They were produced before the Court on 16.07.2024 and on the same day, the contraband was produced before the Court. On directions given by the learned Magistrate, the contraband was kept in Malcana. Thereafter on 25.07.2024, the samples were taken in the presence of the Magistrate. The Magistrate Court should have sent the samples to the Special Court immediately. However, it was sent only on 23.08.2024. Thus the delay is on the part of the Magistrate Court and not on the part of the prosecution. Thereafter, the Special Court had sent the samples to RFSL Lab which was received on 29.08.2024. Thus the delay in the sample reaching the RFSL is not attributable to the police. Consequently, there cannot be an assumption that there could have been some tampering during the interregnum period. 10. Even insofar as the contraband that was seized from A8 to A10, it was produced along with the accused persons before the Vijayanagaram Court on 14.08.2024 and there is mention about the same both in the affidavit filed before the Court seeking for transit warrant as well as in the arrest memo that was produced before the Court. The contraband seized from A8 to A10 was brought along with the accused persons to Tamil Nadu and they were produced https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis before the Special Court and the sample was drawn before the Special Court and those samples were also sent along with the samples taken from the contraband seized from A1 to A6. Hence, this Court does not find any delay on the part of the police in producing the contraband to raise a presumption that there could have been tampering on the part of the prosecution. 11. It was submitted that A1 to A3 do not have any previous cases against them and they have suffered incarceration from 15.07.2024 onwards and considering their long incarceration and also of the fact that the final report has been filed, it was submitted that they can be enlarged on bail. Under normal circumstances, this Court would have favorably considered this submission since the police report has been filed after completion of investigation and it will take some more time to start the trial and complete the proceedings. However, the ramification in this case involves two States. It has become a big challenge for the police as well as for the NIB to keep control of the movement of ganja which is frequently transported from Andhra Pradesh. The main supply of ganja in many cases is found to emanate from Andhra Pradesh and it is reaching Tamil Nadu. After reaching Tamil Nadu, attempt is made https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis to bring it to Thoothukudi or Rameswaram and from there, it is smuggled to Sri Lanka. The call details that were placed before this Court shows that A1 to A6 were in touch with each other and have made several calls during the relevant point of time. A3 has, in fact, made seven calls to A8 who is in Andhra Pradesh during the relevant point of time and there was telephone contact between A8, A9 and A10. Hence, the accused persons are acting as a network and unless and otherwise, the Courts are going to get strict, it will be impossible for the police to control the movement of huge quantities of ganja that are transported from Andhra Pradesh to Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the long incarceration suffered by A1 to A3 by itself is not a ground for granting them bail since a larger public interest is involved and this Court does not find any mandatory violation. 12. Insofar as A8 to A10 are concerned, their involvement came to light based on the confession of the co-accused and without them, the ganja could not have crossed the boundaries of Andhra Pradesh. Granting them bail will certainly result in these persons absconding and it will be a difficult task for the police to once again go in search of A8 to A10. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13. In the considered view of this Court, there is no statutory/mandatory violation in this case and hence, the twin conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act has not been satisfied. 14. In the result, these petitions are dismissed and there shall be a direction to the learned Additional District Judge/Principal Special Court (EC and NDPS Act Cases), Madurai, to dispose of C.C.No.17 of 2025 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any observations made in this order will not have any bearing and the trial Court shall deal with the case on its own merits and in accordance with law. sd/- 03/02/2025 / TRUE COPY / /02/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I/II/III/IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. PKN TO 1 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/PRINCIPAL SPECIAL COURT(EC AND NDPS ACT CASES), MADURAI. 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UTHAMAPALAYAM POLICE STATION, THENI. 3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DISTRICT PRISON, THENI. 5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, SPECIAL PRISON FOR WOMAN, MADURAI. 6 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.22065 of 2024 Date :03/02/2025 NBF / SAR- (18/02/2025) 21P/7C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis