Second accused arrested on the confession of the first accused, who was caught with 32 kgs of ganja, sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court found the petitioner financed the purchase of the contraband and remained involved in its sale; with A-3 absconding and Section 37 NDPS conditions unmet, bail was refused and the petition dismissed.
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. 2039 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 19.02.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 28.02.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Crl.O.P.No. 2039 of 2024
Selvaraj @ Selvam ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police PEW Gummidipoondi Unit Cr.No. 326 of 2023. ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No. 326 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr. P.Ponbalaji
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1
ORDER
Crl.O.P.No. 2039 of 2024
The second accused in Crime No. 326 of 2023 registered under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 29(1) & 25 of NDPS Act 1985 and remanded to judicial custody on 05.09.2023, seeks bail.
been no recovery of contraband from this petitioner and the petitioner had been arrested only on the basis of confession of the first accused. In this connection, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No(s). 475 of 2024 [Ramachandrulu Ramireddy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:-
2
Crl.O.P.No. 2039 of 2024
“Going by the prosecution case, a very limited role has been ascribed to the appellant. There is no recovery made from the appellant. Moreover, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant had financed the vehicle in which the contraband was allegedly found. The appellant had provided a finance of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees Eighty-five Thousand) to Shriram Transport Finance. At highest, the role ascribed to the appellant is that he was escorting the vehicle in which the contraband was found.
Considering these peculiar facts, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail, pending the trial.”
to grant of bail and pointed out that the contraband seized is 32 kgs which is commercial quantity and also that the A-3 is absconding.
3
Crl.O.P.No. 2039 of 2024
been stated that the first accused had given a confession stating that this petitioner had given a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the first accused to purchase the contraband from the third accused, who is absconding. It is therefore stated on behalf of the respondent that though steps have been taken to secure the third accused, he remains elusive. It is therefore contended that since the investigation has not yet been completed, the consideration of issue of bail will not arise for the petitioner.
with possession of 32 kgs of Ganja transported in a vehicle bearing Registration No. PV-10-CW-9491 coming from Andhra Pradesh to Chennai.
The first accused had been arrested on 17.08.2023. Thereafter, his confession was recorded and statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act. He had given a new information namely that he had received money from this petitioner to purchase the Ganja from the third accused. It is thus
4
Crl.O.P.No. 2039 of 2024
seen that this petitioner is directly involved in the purchase, transport and sale of the Ganja. Having financed the purchase, he would also be interested in selling the same for profit. Therefore, he is directly involved in all aspects, namely, financing the purchase, procurement from Andhra Pradesh from the third accused transporting it to Chennai by the first accused and if it had not been seized, selling it in the streets to innocent children or others.
5
Crl.O.P.No. 2039 of 2024
is no possibility of the petitioner ever indulging in sales of Ganja in the future,
I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Petition stands dismissed.
28.02.2024
vsg
To
6
Crl.O.P.No. 2039 of 2024
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
vsg
Pre Delivery Order made in Crl.O.P.No. 2039 of 2024
28.02.2024
7
2 issues framed by the court
Should the second accused be granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity of ganja where no recovery was made from him and he was implicated only on confession?
Was the twin condition of Section 37 NDPS Act satisfied by the petitioner?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramachandrulu Ramireddy Vs. State of Tamil NaduDistinguished¶9
Crl.A.No(s). 475 of 2024 [Ramachandrulu Ramireddy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu]
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Selvaraj @ Selvam
The State rep. by The Inspector of Police PEW Gummidipoondi Unit Cr.No. 326 of 2023
C.V. Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
