ORDER : (K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.) The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 16.07.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21, 23, 25, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act, in F.No.DRI/CZU/ TTIN/VIII/48/10/INT-1/2021, seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.07.2021 at about 17.20 hours, based on some information that the accused would be carrying hashish oil in two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-69-E8879, the respondent agency had intercepted the said vehicle and found that the rider was in possession of 5 pockets of 4.705 kgs of Ganja oil and that the said rider/petitioner herein was arrested and the contraband was seized. 3.The case of the petitioner is that the respondent police has arbitrarily fabricated the above case against the petitioner, that they have not followed all the procedures laid down in the NDPS Act, that the respondent police has not disclosed, in the arrest memo, any material with regard to the ownership of the vehicle, that there is every possibility that the seized substance was implanted in the vehicle in order to implicate the petitioner in the present case, that the independent witnesses have not been examined by the Investigation Officer during search and that they have not followed the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 51 of NDPS Act. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent person and he is a poor coolie, that he is in judicial custody from 16.07.2021 and that there is no previous case pending against him. 5.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent agency would submit that 4705 grams of hashish oil, a narcotic drug covered under the NDPS Act, was recovered from the petitioner, that the petitioner has also given a statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act, that the petitioner was involved in smuggling of 4 kgs of Heroin in the year 2001 and he was convicted and that the respondent, after completing the investigation, has laid the complaint before the Special Court and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.80 of 2022 and is pending. 6.The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that since the petitioner has not satisfied with the twin conditions contemplated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. 6.The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that since the petitioner has not satisfied with the twin conditions contemplated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's earlier application in Crl.O.P(MD)No.2909 of 2022 for bail, came to be dismissed on 03.03.2022, mainly on the ground that the twin conditions contemplated under Section 37 of NDPS Act were not satisfied. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner's second application for bail in Crl.O.P(MD)No.7250 of 2022, which was also dismissed vide order, dated 24.06.2022. However, while dismissing the second petition, considering the fact that Non- bailable warrant was pending against the first accused, this Court directed the learned trial Judge to take necessary steps through the respondent police for execution of warrant against the first accused and if the first accused is not secured within a reasonable time, the trial Judge was directed to take necessary steps for splitting up the case so far as the present petitioner/accused is concerned and proceed with the trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. 8.The petitioner/accused, complaining that the directions of this Court were not complied by both the Court and the Police and also raising some grounds on merits, has filed the present third application. 9.Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the directions of this Court, dated 24.06.2022 have not complied with, this Court directed the Registry to call for a report from the learned trial Judge and also an affidavit from the Investigating Officer, who is in charge of the case. In pursuance of the same, the learned Additional District Judge, Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, has submitted a report, dated 07.02.2025 stating that NBW is pending against the first accused, that the prosecution has filed a petition to split up the case now only in Crl.M.P.No.339 of 2025 and the said petition was allowed and the case as against the first accused was ordered to be split up in C.C.No.44 of 2025 and that the case as against the second accused stands posted for furnishing of copies on 18.02.2025. 10.The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Thoothukudi, has filed an affidavit stating that despite their strenuous and sustained efforts, they were unable to trace and secure the absconding first accused; that the shortage of police personnel and increased workload have contributed to the delay in securing the absconding accused, despite their diligent and relentless efforts; that non- execution of NBW is neither willful nor wanton and seeking apology for the delay caused in splitting up the case; that they have already filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.339 of 2025, to split up the case and the same came to be allowed and that they are assuring that they will be present for all the hearings and will actively participate in the proceedings to ensure that the trial progresses without any further delay on their part. 11.It is pertinent to note that this Court has issued directions as early as on 24.06.2022 and the present third application came to be filed in December 2024. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even after the lapse of more that 2 ½ of years, neither the Court nor the police has chosen to comply with the directions of this Court. Despite the Court and police offering some flimsy excuses, the non compliance with this Court's directions is deplorable. 12.It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 16.07.2021. It is also not in dispute that the case in C.C.No.80 of 2022 was ordered to be split up and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.44 of 2025 as against the first accused and the parent case of C.C.No.80 of 2022 as against the second accused is now pending for furnishing of copies. 13.The learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly canvass two grounds for granting bail and the first ground is that the petitioner/accused was not informed of the grounds of arrest and as such, the same vitiates the arrest of the accused and that therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the bail. 14.The next reason canvassed is that the petitioner is in custody for more than 3 ½ of years and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 15. 14.The next reason canvassed is that the petitioner is in custody for more than 3 ½ of years and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 15. Let us take the first ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another [ Crl.A.No... of 2025 ] (arising out of Special Leave Petition in (Crl.)No.13320 of 2024), wherein the Hon'be Supreme Court has concluded that “a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1); d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.” 16.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the case on hand, the petitioner was not at all informed about the grounds of arrest and even according to the prosecution, arrest was duly intimated to the petitioner's brother Anbu through his mobile phone; that the prosecution has not produced any documents or materials to show that the grounds of arrest was served on the petitioner/accused and that in the absence of any proof for the same, as per the above decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, non compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiated the arrest of the petitioner/accused. 17. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that in the present case, the petitioner was not arrested straightaway; that summons under Section 67 of NDPS Act was issued directing the petitioner to appear on 15.07.2021 before the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Thoothukudi and in pursuance of the said summons, the petitioner appeared before the respondent and gave a statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act on 15.07.2021 and that subsequently, he was arrested on 16.07.2021 by serving arrest memo and the same came to be intimated to the petitioner's brother Anbu through mobile and that therefore, the petitioner was fully aware of the grounds of arrest. Moreover, he would further submit that the petitioner has not canvassed the above ground for the past 2 ½ years and that too, in the earlier two bail applications. 18. Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court directed the Registry to call for the concerned records. It is evident from the original records that in arrest memo, dated 16.07.2021, there were endorsements made by the Senior Intelligence Officer with regard to the intimation of arrest to the petitioner's brother in the presence of two witnesses and also the endorsement made by the petitioner himself that he understood the grounds of arrest and the relevant portion is extracted ; The petitioner has subscribed his signature with date. Since the petitioner has himself made the endorsement that he understood about the grounds of arrest, the present contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely devoid of merits and the same is liable to be rejected. 19.Now turning to the second ground, no doubt, the petitioner is in judicial custody for the past 3 ½ years. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the decision of this Court in R.Vadivel Vs. Union of India .rep., the Intelligence Officer , in [ Crl.O.P.No.4967 of 2024 ], dated 29.10.2024, wherein the petitioner therein has been implicated based on the confession statement recorded from the co-accused; that there was no recovery from the said petitioner; that the petitioner was in judicial custody for more than 4 ½ years and since he is a physically challenged and suffering from many ailments; the learned Judge, by considering that the petitioner had already served almost 50% of the minimum sentence or 25% of the maximum sentence, has granted bail. 20. The learned counsel would also rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rabi Praksh Vs. State of Odisha reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1109 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. 21. It is pertinent to mention that in the said case, the accused was not having any criminal antecedents and he was in judicial custody for more than 3 ½ years. 22. In the case on hand, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner was earlier involved in the smuggling of 4 kgs of Heroin and the case was registered against him by the Narcotics Control Bureau vide O.R.No.03 of 2021 of NCB, Trivandrum Sub Zone and that after trial, he was convicted and thereafter as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.1250 of 2005 dated 11.03.2008 sentenced was ordered to be reduced. 23.As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner has already committed a grave offence of smuggling 4 Kgs of Heroin and now it is the second offence for commercial quantity. 23.As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner has already committed a grave offence of smuggling 4 Kgs of Heroin and now it is the second offence for commercial quantity. He would further submit that since the petitioner was already convicted for similar offence as per Section 31 of NDPS Act, the Court can sentence him upto 30 years ie., one and one-half of times of maximum punishment for the offence, which are punishable with minimum sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1 lakh and that therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get bail only on the ground that he is in judicial custody for 3 ½ years. 24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the petitioner's earlier conviction under the NDPS Act, this Court finds much merit in the objections raised on behalf of the respondent. Consequently, this Court concludes that the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief claimed. But, at the same time, this Court is of the view that the trial Court is to be directed to proceed with the trial of the case as against the petitioner/second accused and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 25. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. The learned Additional District Judge, Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.