Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2469 (MAD)

Murugesan v. Intelligence Officer, Madurai

2022-08-02

G.ILANGOVAN

body2022
JUDGMENT (Common Prayer: C-32B.For Bail in NCB.F.No. 48/1/06/2021/NCB/MDU on the file of the Respondent.) 1. The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to A3 were arrested, on 26/10/2021 and remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offences punishable under sections 8(c), 20(b),(ii)(B), 22(C) and 29 of NDPS Act, in NCB.F.No. 48/1/06/2021/NCB/MDU on the file of the Respondent, seek bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that Narcotics Control Bureau, Madurai, on a secret information, on 23/02/2021 with the consignment is awaiting delivery from DTDC Courier office. The consignor was one Amir Sohail. It was addressed to one Murugesan, Pudukkottai. The consignment was seized and found 620 grams of dark green sticky viscous liquid substance. It was recovered from the above said Courier office. On the basis of the above said occurrence, the case was registered against all the accused persons. 3. Seeking bail, these petitions have been filed by the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are no way involved in the above said transportation of contraband through Courier and the petitioner/A3 namely Murugesan was working as Cashier in a private company at Coimbatore and the samples are not contraband in nature. 4. At that time of argument, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the accused Manikandan is noway involved, which was sent to the 3rd accused Murugesan and as a friend of Murugesan, Manikandan was requested to receive the courier on behalf of Murugesan. This is the case of the above said Manikandan and the further ground is that he is in custody for more than 206 days. 5. Per contra, it is submitted on the side of the respondent to the effect that the involvement of the petitioners came to light on thorough investigation and section 37 of the NDPS Act should be strictly complied. Now the final report has been filed in CC No.75 of 2022. 6. It is seen that the earlier bail application that was filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed by this court. Perusal of the counter filed by the respondent shows that call details of the mobile phone, which was used by the above said Manikandan and Mennen were found out. It is also stated that Manikandan is the close friend of the above said Murugesan. Knowing fully well that it contains contraband, it was received by the above said Manikandan. Perusal of the counter filed by the respondent shows that call details of the mobile phone, which was used by the above said Manikandan and Mennen were found out. It is also stated that Manikandan is the close friend of the above said Murugesan. Knowing fully well that it contains contraband, it was received by the above said Manikandan. So the involvement of the petitioners can be found out only during the course of trial. 7. As stated by the respondent, since commercial quantity is involved in this case, section 37 of the NDPS Act must be strictly complied. Except stating the petitioners are no way involved in the above said transportation of the contraband, no other ground worthy considering has been brought on record. The earlier bail application came to be dismissed not only by the trial court, but also by this court. So, I am of the considered view that these petitioners have not made out a special case. 8.In the result, these criminal original petitions are dismissed. But however, considering the duration of the custody of the petitioners, there shall be a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial process and complete the same within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the trial is not completed within the time stipulated by this court, the petitioners are at liberty to revive their bail applications.