Allowed¶30

Anguthai v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC29 Apr 2025CRL MP(MD)/5154/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence; bail pending appeal; Section 430(1) BNSS; NDPS Act; Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B); ganja 6 kg commercial quantity; joint trial; confession of A1; Crime No.202 of 2023; PEW-Theni Police Station; CC.No.962 of 2023; Crl.A(MD) No.458 of 2025; Anguthai; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; bail bond Rs.25,000 with two sureties; daily reporting before trial Court; prior convictions under Section 380 IPC; arguable points left open for final hearing.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner pending disposal of Crl.A(MD) No.458 of 2025, and enlargement on bail on a bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum, subject to conditions including payment of the fine, an affidavit before the respondent police, and daily reporting before the trial Court.

Anguthai Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the sentence and conviction imposed on the petitioner in CC.No.962 of 2023 should be suspended and she enlarged on bail pending disposal of the appeal in Crl.A(MD) No.458 of 2025. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

This petition is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner alone is suspended pending disposal of the criminal appeal.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is enlarged on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the I Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, subject to conditions: the fine imposed by the trial Court shall be paid; the petitioner and sureties shall file an affidavit before the respondent police that she will not misuse liberty or indulge in any further offence; she shall report before the trial Court daily; and on violation of any condition the respondent police shall move to cancel the suspension.

¶31

Key takeaways

Suspension was granted because the petitioner raised arguable points fit only for the final hearing of the appeal, the appeal could not be taken up immediately for want of time, and the petitioner has completed the substantial portion of her sentence; the arguable points themselves were left open.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (B. Pugalandhi, J.) allowed Crl.MP(MD) No.5154 of 2025 filed under Section 430(1) BNSS by Anguthai, accused No.7 in CC.No.962 of 2023 (Crime No.202 of 2023, PEW-Theni Police Station), who stood convicted by the I Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/- (default 9 months simple imprisonment). Her appeal in Crl.A(MD) No.458 of 2025 having been admitted, and considering that she had raised arguable points (non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act, four-day delay in sending the contraband to Court, absence of independent witnesses, implication based on A1's confession) which were left open for the final hearing; that the appeal could not be taken up immediately; and that she had completed the substantial portion of her sentence (counsel stating she was in prison from 20.03.2023, over two years), the Court suspended the substantive sentence pending the appeal and enlarged her on bail on a bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions including an affidavit before the respondent police, daily reporting before the trial Court, and payment of the fine. The prosecution case (per the Additional Public Prosecutor) was that eight accused procured ganja from Andhra Pradesh; recoveries from co-accused based on A1's statement were treated as commercial quantity and jointly tried; the petitioner was alleged to have been in possession of 6 kgs of ganja, with two prior convictions under Section 380 IPC.

¶1

Crl.MP(MD) No.5154 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

Crl.MP(MD) No.5154 of 2025 in Crl.A(MD) No.458 of 2025

Anguthai

... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Inspector of Police, PEW-Theni Police Station, Theni.

¶11

(Crime No.202 of 2023) ... Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 430(1) of BNSS to suspend the sentence and conviction made in the judgment dated 20.03.2025 in CC.No.962 of 2023 passed by the I Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the appeal.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thangaprithivrajan For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner accused No.7 in CC.No.962 of 2023 along with seven others has

¶16

1/5

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Crl.MP(MD) No.5154 of 2025

¶19

been tried by the I Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo 9 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. As against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, this petitioner has filed an appeal before this Court in Crl.A(MD) No.458 of 2025 and the same has been admitted by this Court. The petitioner has also moved this petition to suspend the sentence.

¶20

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the mandatory provisions under Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. There is a delay of four days in sending the contraband to the Court concerned. All the witnesses are official witnesses and no independent witness has been examined in support of the allegation. She has been implicated in this case only based on the confession statement of A1. The trial Court without considering these defects convicted the petitioner. The sentence of imprisonment is only three years and she has been in prison from 20.03.2023 for more than two years. Therefore, the learned Counsel prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail by suspending the sentence of imprisonment.

¶21

2/5

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Crl.MP(MD) No.5154 of 2025

¶24

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submits that totally there are eight accused in this case. They have procured ganja from Andhra Pradesh and based on the statement of A1, they recovered ganja from other accused on different dates. This petitioner was in possession of 6 kgs of ganja. Since the contraband has been recovered from other accused based on the confession statement of A1, it has been treated as commercial quantity and joint trial has been conducted. Apart from this case the petitioner has involved in two cases under Section 380 IPC, which ended in conviction.

¶25

4.This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused the material placed on record.

¶26

5.The petitioner has raised certain arguable points, which can be considered only during the final hearing of the appeal. However the appeal could not be taken up for final hearing for want of time. Considering the points raised by the petitioner and for the reason that the appeal could not be taken up immediately, considering that the petitioner has completed the substantial portion of sentence, this Court is inclined to allow this petition.

¶27

3/5

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

Crl.MP(MD) No.5154 of 2025

¶30

6.Accordingly this petition is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner alone is suspended pending disposal of the criminal appeal on the following conditions:

¶31

(i)The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties each for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the I Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai. The sureties must be respectable persons in the society. The fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall be paid by the petitioner.

¶32

(ii) The petitioner and the sureties shall file an affidavit before the respondent police that the petitioner will not misuse this liberty and will not indulge in any further offence.

¶33

(iii) The petitioner shall report before the trial Court daily.

¶34

(iv) If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the respondent police shall

¶35

move an application to cancel the order of suspension of sentence of imprisonment.

¶36

sd/-

¶37

29/04/2025

¶38

/ TRUE COPY /