Alex Pandiyan v. The Inspector of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10/07/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN Alex Pandiyan

... Petitioner / 4th Accused

Vs The State, rep by The Inspector of Police, Nagapattinam Town Police Station, Nagapattinam District. (Crime No.36 of 2022). ... Respondent / Complainant For Petitioner : Ms.P.Vimala, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.36 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/4th Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.02.2022 by the respondent Police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.36 of 2022 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other co-accused tried to smuggle the contraband to Srilanka through boat and the respondent Police arrested all the accused and also recovered the 9 gunny bags of Ganja (each 50 kgs) and the vehicles also. Hence, the complaint.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that totally three vehicles were proceeding towards destination one after another. From the second vehicle, the above said contraband has been recovered. Absolutely, the petitioner was not available in the place of occurrence and no recovery has been made either contraband or vehicle from the petitioner. Even owner of the vehilce has not been identified by the Investigation Officer and not even confession statment is not recorded.

¶4The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that all the three vehicles were proceedings towards destination for smuggling contraband to Srilanka after purchase the same from Andra Pradesh. The petitioner was available in the place of occurrence itself and seized huge portion of contraband.

¶5According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, all the above said facts have not been taken into account in the earlier bail application, which was filed by the petitioner.

¶6I find no reason to differ from the above said earlier order and no new ground is made except stating that the petitioner was not available in the place of occurrence.

¶7Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, considering that there is no change of circumstances, huge quantity of contraband is involved and international smuggling of the drug is also involved the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond and investigation process will be affected. Hence, I find no reason to entertain this petition. This petition deserves dismissal and accordingly dismissed.

sd/-

10/07/2023

/ TRUE COPY /

/08/2023

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai - 625 023. INDU To

1.The Inspector of Police, Naagapattinam Town Police Station, Naagapattinam District.

2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12438 of 2023 Date :10/07/2023 ED/BUC/SAR- (02/08/2023) 4P / 4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023