JUDGMENT (Prayer: For Bail in Crime No.31 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.) 1. The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, on21/01/2022 for the offences punishable under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 ofNDPS Act 1985, in Crime No.31 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, in CCNo.53 of 2023 on the file of the Principal EC & NDPS Court, Madurai, seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution in brie f :-On 21.01.2022 at about 06.30 pm, based on the secret information received bythe Sub-Inspector of Police, he along with the police party went near V.Grand Hotel,Surveyor Colony, K.Pudur, Madurai Town. At that time, they saw a Nissan Carbearing Reg.No.TN-19-S-8580 coming from east to western side, driven byA1/Rajkumar. It was intercepted and on search, the respondent police found a whitecolour gunny bag in the back side of the car containing 8kgs of Ganja. On furtherenquiry, the respondent came to know that A2 namely Jeyakumar usually purchasedGanja from Andhra Pradesh for purpose of selling the same in the local area alongwith A3 to A5. On further investigation, the respondent police found two whitecolour gunny bags in A1''s rented house in T.M.Nagar 4th street, Uthangudi eachcontaining 19 kgs of Ganja. 3. After completing all the procedures contemplated under the NDPS Act, therespondent police seized the contraband totalling 46kgs of Ganja and arrested theaccused. During investigation it came to light that all the accused persons activelyinvolved in the drug trafficking. Hence the case. 4. This petitioner along with one Suhail Ahmed filed Crl.OP(MD)No.21413 of2022 seeking bail. Suhail Ahmed''s petition was heard in Crl.OP(MD)No.21903 of 2022and a common order was passed by this court, on 01/03/2023. After elaboratediscussion, the bail applications were dismissed. 5. It was submitted before this court that based upon the confession statement ofA1, this petitioner was arrayed as an accused. It was also submitted that at that thatwhen he was not involved in the above said offence, one Vinoth, who belongs toKadachanenthal was involved. Unable to find out the above said Vinoth, he waswrongly implicated. He has worked as a Trainee Professional Service Representativein Burgeon Private Limited and subsequently selected as Territory Business Mangerin Ind-Swift Limited Company and he worked in the Company for more than twoyears. He drawn salary amount of Rs.49,000/- and there was no necessity to him toinvolve in the above said offence. He has worked as a Trainee Professional Service Representativein Burgeon Private Limited and subsequently selected as Territory Business Mangerin Ind-Swift Limited Company and he worked in the Company for more than twoyears. He drawn salary amount of Rs.49,000/- and there was no necessity to him toinvolve in the above said offence. The quantity of the contraband involved in thiscase is 46 kgs. The identify of the petitioner was fixed on the basis of the call details.He gave a different story that it was a borrower and lender relationship. Apart fromthat, the banking transactions also took place between the petitioner and A1 and A4. 6. Para 17 of the above said order can be extracted herein for betterunderstanding of the issue:- “17.It is the case of the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD) No.21413of 2022 that other than borrowed money as loan from A1 andreturning the same , there is no connection between them.Initially the petitioner had taken a plea that he is not the realaccused and one Kadachanenthal Vinoth is the actual accusedand he was falsely implicated in this case on mistaken identity. Itis the case of the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD) No.21903 of 2022 thathe is not all connected with the offence and that he had raised aplea that his remand itself was illegal and had challenged thesame and it had been negatived by the Hon’ble Division Benchof this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is the case of theprosecution that apart from the confession of A1, there are amplematerials in the form of CDR report, bank transaction and towerlocation to connect the petitioners with the crime and they haveconspired together and abetted the main accused in the crime ofdrug trafficking.” 7. In the concluding portion, it has been observed as under:- “21.The allegation against the petitioners is that theyabetted the main accused in the crime. The question of abetmentand criminal conspiracy cannot be gone into at the time ofconsidering the bail petition. It is too early to consider thequestion of abetment and criminal conspiracy while consideringthe bail petition. These aspects have to be considered on the basisof oral and documentary evidence that would be adducedduring the trial of the case. 22.Further it is also the case of the prosecution that basedon materials available it could be presumed that existence ofculpable mental state with regard to the knowledge of crime.” 8. These aspects have to be considered on the basisof oral and documentary evidence that would be adducedduring the trial of the case. 22.Further it is also the case of the prosecution that basedon materials available it could be presumed that existence ofculpable mental state with regard to the knowledge of crime.” 8. By pointing out the above said observation, the learned Additional PublicProsecutor would submit that this petitioner is taking different and contradictorystands, which will falsify his defence, since the contraband involved is more than 46kgs. Since it is a commercial quantity, he is to satisfy the requirement of section 37 ofthe NDPS Act. 9. But however, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner wouldrely upon the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhail Ahmed Vs.State Rep. through the Inspector of Police. That was filed by Suhail Ahmed, whofiled Crl.OP(MD)No.21903 of 2023, as mentioned above, before this court. Subsequentto the order passed in Crl.OP(MD)Nos.21413 and 21903 of 2022, another applicationwas filed by him, in Crl.OP(MD)No.5602 of 2023, which was also dismissed by thiscourt on 10/04/2023. Against which, he filed S.L.P (Criminal) No.6668 of 2022 beforethe Hon''ble Supreme Court. He would rely upon the following observation of theHon''ble Supreme Court. “Admittedly, there is no recovery of contraband from theappellant or from his possession. The evidence of the prosecutionis based on regular telephonic conversations between theappellant and the accused no.1 as well as the transactionsbetween them. The charge-sheet has been filed. We also recordthat the accused no.1 has been enlarged on bail. On a query made by this Court, learned counsel appearingfor the respondent states that so far, there are no antecedentsreported about the appellant. Hence, in the facts of the case, we direct that the appellantshall be enlarged on bail on such terms and conditions as may befixed by the Special Court after hearing the respondent. For thatpurpose, the appellant shall be produced before the SpecialCourt within a period of one week from today. We, however, make it clear that in the evident it is foundthat after being enlarged on bail, the trial court is delayed due tonon cooperation on the part of the appellant, the liberty grantedto the appellant is liable to be withdrawn. With the aforesaid observations, the Appeal is allowed.Pending application(s) stands disposed of. 10. We, however, make it clear that in the evident it is foundthat after being enlarged on bail, the trial court is delayed due tonon cooperation on the part of the appellant, the liberty grantedto the appellant is liable to be withdrawn. With the aforesaid observations, the Appeal is allowed.Pending application(s) stands disposed of. 10. By pointing out this order, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for thepetitioner would submit that the above benefit may be extended to this petitioneralso, since he is also standing on the very same footing like that of the above saidSuhail Ahmed. 11. Reading of the order that was passed by this court in the above said criminaloriginal petitions shows that this petitioner also standing on the very same footinglike that of Suhail Ahmed. No bad antecedent is also reported against this petitioner. So the benefit that was extended to the above said Suhail Ahmed is also available tothe petitioner. 12. On that account, this criminal original petition is allowed, of course, on thesame terms that have been made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, thepetitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition that he shall execute a bondfor a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for alike sum to the satisfaction of the EC and NDPS Special Court, Madurai, and onfurther condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police dailyat 10.30 am until further orders.