Dismissed

Smt. Kaliammal v. the Interlligence Officer

Madras HC9 Feb 2015CRL OP(MD)/1223/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner accused of harboring a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory. Citing the gravity of the allegations and Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the court denied bail.

What did the court decide?

Petition for bail dismissed.

Smt. Kaliammal Vs the Interlligence Officer — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Monday, the Ninth day of February Two Thousand Fifteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.1223 of 2015

¶6

SMT. KALIAMMAL ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.3

¶7

¶8

THE STATE REP. BY THE INTERLLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, MADURAI SUB ZONE, MADURAI. NCB/F.N.48/1/01/2013-NCB/MDS. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S.AR.L.SUNDARESHAN SENIOR COUNSEL

¶10

FOR M/S.AL.GANTHIMATHI Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : M/S. ARUL VADIVEL @ SEKAR SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

FOR NCB CASES

¶13

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.03.2013 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 22(C) r/w Sections 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in NCB F.No.48/1/01/2013-NCB/MDS on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶16

Heard Mr.AR.L.Sundareshan, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.AL.Ganthimathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB Cases.

¶17

This is second bail petition and the first bail petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13065 of 2013 was dismissed on 13.08.2013. The respondent has filed a detailed counter. It is the case of the defacto complainant that based on a specific information, the Officers of NCB searched the house in Door No.4/75, New No.791, Vaivarapuram, Sirukoodalpatti, Tirupattur-Pudukottai Road, Sivagangai District on 22.03.2013 and bust a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory and seized 5.77 kgs of methamphetamine, which is a psychotropic substance. In connection with this, Police arrested some Iranian Nationals, who were involved in the illicit manufacturing of methamphetamine in the said place. This petitioner is the landlady of the house in which the laboratory for illicit manufacturing of methamphetamine was being operated.

¶18

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner is absolutely innocent and that her husband is in Malaysia and she had merely rented out the premises to the Iranians, who had established the laboratory without her knowledge.

¶19

This Court directed the respondent to produce a copy of the statement of this petitioner that was recorded by the respondent under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. On reading of the statement, she has very clearly stated that she along with her son Kalidoss and her relative Ramachandran were lured into by her nephew Veeramani into this activity and she had rented out the premises to the Iranians for them to establish the laboratory. In her statement, she has also disclosed that under her very nose, the equipments for the laboratory were installed by the Iranians and they were manufacturing the contraband. She has also permitted them to use the terrace for their nefarious activity.

¶20

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that she is an unlettered lady and does not know the consequences of her action.

¶21

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that this petitioner has three passports, of course, original passport together with the expired ones and she goes abroad frequently and that she is not merely an innocent lady, as projected by the defence.

¶22

On a conspectus of the facts obtaining in this case, it is seen that the Iranians, this petitioner and other accused were aware of what they were doing and it cannot be stated that she is not guilty of the offences for which she is charged.

¶23

Taking into consideration the gravity of the allegation against this petitioner and also in the light of Section 37 of NDPS Act, this is not a fit case to grant bail to this petition. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/-

09/02/2015

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶28

¶29

1 THE INTERLLIGENCE OFFICER

¶30

NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, MADURAI SUB ZONE, MADURAI.

¶31

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶32

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶33

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY.

TS/10.02.2015/1P-4C

ORDER

CRL OP(MD) No.1223 of 2015 Date :09/02/2015

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Smt. Kaliammal v. the Interlligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kaliammal v. the Interlligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Abdul Haq Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Ramamurthy Vs the Inspector of Police

Selvaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Ramanathan Vs the Inspector of Police

Mani Murugan Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthuvel Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police