A.KUBENDRAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/A1 in Crl.OP.No.7827 of 2023, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 6/12/2021 for the alleged offences punishable under Ss. 8(C) read with Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 27A, 28 and 29 punishable under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 27-A, 28 and 29 of the N.D.P.S.Act, 1985 as amended, in RR.No.37 of 2021 on the file of the respondent, pending trial in C.C.No.128 of 2022 on the file of Court of Special Judge for NDPS Act cases at Chennai, seeks bail. The petitioner/A5 in Crl.OP.No.8876 of 2023, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 9/3/2023 for the alleged offences punishable under Ss. 8(c) R/w 20(B)(II)(C), 25, 27A, 28 and 29 of NDPS.Act, 1985, on the file of the respondent, pending trial in C.C.No.128 of 2022 on the file of II Additional Special Court Exclusive Trial of cases under NDPS Act at Chennai, seeks bail.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that based on specific information, the officers of Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai Zonal Unit, seized 642.100 kg of brownish green colour dry leaves and flower tops believed to be Marijuana (ganja) kept in Eicher Truck bearing Reg. No. TN-57-W-0591 at Karanodai Toll plaza, Chennai on 04/5/12/2021 and arrested three persons namely A.Kubendran/A1, aged 35 years S/o Anbazhagan, Balakrishnan.T aged around 44 years S/o Thangamalai Thevar.S and Ramu.T aged around 50 years S/o Thangavelu for their involvement in trafficking of the seized Ganja under provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985. It has been alleged in this case that the seized Eicher van bearing Registration No.TN-57-W- 0591 belongs to A1. Originally the said vehicle belongs to one Senthilkumar and later one Thangapandi had entered into sale agreement with the said Senthilkumar.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.7827 of 2023 submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as first accused. According to the prosecution, seized eicher van bearing registration No.TN 57 W 0591 belongs to the petitioner. Originally, the said vehicle belongs to one Senthil Kumar and later one Thangapandi entered into an agreement for sale. Under the agreement, the petitioner is neither party nor a signatory. Therefore, the petitioner never owned any vehicle. Only on the confession statement of the said Senthilkumar, the petitioner has been taken into custody and arrayed as accused. In fact, on perusal of the confession statement of Senthilkumar, he did not whisper about the petitioner or his involvement in the purchase of the said vehicle. The alleged contraband was not seized from the petitioner and he is not the relative to any other accused i.e. Thangapandi. He did not whisper about his relationship with the petitioner. According to the case of the prosecution, three cell phone numbers alleged to be in the petitioner's custody, whereas those phone numbers were not in the name of the petitioner and there is absolutely no evidence to connect the petitioner to the said phone numbers. Further alleged that a huge sum was transferred to the petitioner's bank account from the second accused. But, originally the said amount has been transferred to the petitioner's account from the account of wife of the second accused. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the petitioner was in conscious and constructive possession of contraband.