Petitioner sought bail in NDPS case alleging violation of statutory provisions and long incarceration. Court noted serious nature of smuggling attempt and lack of grounds to believe innocence, dismissing bail application but directing expedited trial.
Bail refused; trial court directed to dispose of case within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No.21360 of 2023
Crl.O.P.No.21360 of 2023
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to enlarge her on bail in C.C.No.224 of 2022 pending trial on the file of the Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act Cases, Chennai, in connection with R.R.No.40 of 2021 registered on the file of the respondent.
1/8
Crl.O.P.No.21360 of 2023
under Section 50 of NDPS Act and Section 102 of Customs Act, 1962 were explained to the petitioner. During enquiry, the petitioner became nervous and on persistent questioning by officials, the petitioner had accepted to concealing narcotics wrapped in adhesive tapes in her rectum and she had agreed to voluntarily eject the same. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused was taken to the toilet along with the witnesses and she voluntarily ejected two bundles wrapped with adhesive tapes and after washing it, handed over the same to the officer in the presence of the independent witnesses. The said bundles were cut open and found to contain 99 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. Thereby, the petitioner was arrested on 09.12.2021 and remanded to judicial custody on the same day.
for the offences punishable under Sections 9(A) r/w 23, 25A, 28 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and after completion of investigation, the complaint was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(C), 23(C), 28 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985. Thereafter, the case has been taken up for trial in C.C.No.224 of 2022, on the file of the Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8
Crl.O.P.No.21360 of 2023
Cases, Chennai.
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has been falsely being implicated in this case. He further submitted that this is the third application for bail filed by the petitioner before this Court and her earlier bail application filed in Crl.O.P.Nos.8183 of 2022 and 1979 of 2023 pending investigation was dismissed by this Court on 20.04.2022 and 14.03.2023 respectively. He further submitted that only after the petitioner came into the possession of the complaint, she could find that materials available to substantiate her case to satisfy the twin conditions required under Section 37 of NDPS Act for grant of bail, which were not pleaded or placed before this Court during the hearing of the earlier petition.
has acquitted the accused and since there are violation of mandatory https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8
Crl.O.P.No.21360 of 2023
conditions, there is every possibility of the petitioner being acquitted. He further submitted that the passport of the petitioner is also seized by the respondent and therefore there is no possibility of the petitioner to flee away from the country. He further submitted that the petitioner is languishing in jail for almost two years from 09.12.2021, whereas, there is no progress in the trial. Therefore, on account of the long incarceration the petitioner is entitled to bail.
case of State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand & another reported in (2014) 5 SCC 345.
appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that it is the case where the petitioner attempted to smuggle 99 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride "Commercial Quantity", by concealing it in her rectum and on the same day, at the same time, the petitioner's son and her relatives were also arrested for adopting the same method and attempting to smuggle
99 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride each, by concealing it in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8
Crl.O.P.No.21360 of 2023
their rectum. He further submitted that separate complaints have been filed
against them and those cases are also pending trial. He further submitted that the attempt was made in a well organized manner to smuggle the contraband, which is a commercial quantity, out of the country. He also submitted that the issue of whether there is a violation of Section 52(A) of NDPS Act is there or not, is a matter of evidence and the decision of that issue can be taken only at the time of trial, which can be adjudicated during the course of trial by examination of witnesses.
Crl.O.P.No.21360 of 2023
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.
attempted to smuggle commercial quantity (99 grams) of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, by concealing it in their rectum. Considering the above facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that violation of Sections 50, 51 and 52(A) of NDPS Act is the matter to be decided during the course of trial by examining the witnesses.
and also considering the manner and the mode in which the petitioner has attempted to smuggle Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, this Court is of the view that the crime is of serious nature and this Court does not seem to find any reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of such offense. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
for the petitioner that considering the long incarceration suffered by the petitioner, a direction may be issued to the trial Court to complete the trial https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8
Crl.O.P.No.21360 of 2023
as expeditiously as possible.
21.11.2023
ham
7/8
Crl.O.P.No.21360 of 2023
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
ham
Crl.O.P.No.21360 of 2023
21.11.2023
8/8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner violating Sections 50, 51 and 52(A) of NDPS Act.
Whether there is reasonable ground to believe the petitioner is not guilty of the charge of smuggling drugs.
Whether the trial court should be directed to conclude the trial within a specified time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand & anotherReferred¶22
State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand & another, (2014) 5 SCC 345 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
A.D.CHANDIRA
STATE
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
