Single judge refused bail to a petitioner arrested for narcotics offenses after he failed to appear in court for nearly two years, citing his history as a habitual offender and the risk of absconding.
Bail refused; Direction issued to trial court to complete trial within three 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.8087 of 2023
Crl.O.P.No.8087 of 2023
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.11.2021 for the offences under Sections under Sections 8(c), 20(b) (ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act in Crime No.327 of 2018, on the file of the respondent police in C.C.No.194 of 2018 on the file of the Ist Additional Special Judge, NDPS & EC Act, Chennai, seeks bail.
remanded to judicial custody on 12.11.2021 on execution of Non Bailable Warrant issued against him on 27.12.2019.
Page 1 of 4
Crl.O.P.No.8087 of 2023
to pandemic and non communication between him and his counsel, the petitioner could not appear before the Court and subsequently, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in another case on 15.08.2020 and thereafter, he was also detained under Act 14 on 05.09.2020 and subsequently, the petitioner was arrested in this case through P.T. Warrant on 12.11.2021 on execution of Non Bailable Warrant and that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for nearly 17 months. He would submit that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial Court on all future hearing dates and to co-operate for the speedy disposal of trial. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
Page 2 of 4
Crl.O.P.No.8087 of 2023
issued Non Bailable Warrant against the petitioner and later the petitioner was remanded in jail in another case and subsequently, he was produced in this case through PT Warrant. He would submit that there are totally 7 witnesses in this case and so far P.W.1 has been examined. The respondent is taking endeavor to complete the case as expeditiously as possible and if the petitioner is let out on bail at this stage, there is every possibility of absconding and also tampering the evidence.
and the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender against whom there are 31 cases pending and that the petitioner has been arrested after a considerable time, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
about 4 years, a direction is issued to the trial Court to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from today.
Page 3 of 4
Crl.O.P.No.8087 of 2023
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
ksa-2
dismissed.
27.04.2023
ksa-2 Note: Issue Order copy on 02.05.2023.
Crl.O.P.No.8087 of 2023
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an arrested habitual offender in a narcotics case who failed to appear in court due to pandemic.
How to balance the rights of an arrested petitioner against the risk of absconding and tampering with evidence in pending trials.
The Petitioner (Adl. Jagadish Chandira)
The Respondent Police / State
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
