LAWS(MAD)-2023-9-53

KASI DURAI THALAIVANAR Vs. STATE

Decided On September 27, 2023
Kasi Durai Thalaivanar Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 5/1/2023 for the offences punishable under Ss. 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in C.C.No.496 of 2023 on the file of Principal Special Judge for EC/NDPS Act Cases Chennai District in Crime No.640 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

(2.) It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is falsely implicated in this case in Crime No.640 of 2022 registered for the offences under Ss. 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. There was no recovery of any contraband from the petitioner. Petitioner is implicated in this case on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused. Petitioner was produced under PT Warrant when the petitioner was in custody in connection with Crime No.361 of 2022 on the file of the Puliankudi Police Station. Petitioner is in judicial custody from 5/1/2023. Thus, he seeks bail.

(3.) In response, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on 29/11/2022, the de-facto complainant on the secret information received, mounted surveillance near Poonamallee to Bangalore By-pass road. At about 7.30 a.m., they found two persons, one with red colour shoulder bag and another with brown colour travel bag in suspicious circumstances. On seeing the police they tried to escape. The police apprehended them and came to know them as 1) Vasantha Kumar and 2) Mailarasan. After informing them about the secret information and following necessary procedures, a search was conducted. From the search of the shoulder bag possessed by Vasantha kumar, they found 14 Kgs of ganja. Then from the travelling bag of Mailarasan, they found 16 Kgs of ganja. Necessary samples were taken. The accused were arrested and the case was registered. He further submitted that now from the confessional statement of A1 and A2, this petitioner is implicated as an accused.