VIVEKANANDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19/1/2023, pursuant to the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued on 22/8/2022, in C.C.No.174 of 2019, in connection with Crime No.638 of 2019, pending on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Chennai, seeks bail.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an accused (A1) facing trial in C.C.No.174 of 2019, for the alleged offence under Ss. 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, pending on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Chennai. He further submitted that the petitioner has all along been regularly appearing before the Court on all hearing dates and since, the petitioner was working as a Cleaner in a National permit lorry, he was away from the State, therefore, he asked his counsel to file an application under Sec. 317 Cr.P.C on 18/8/2022 and thereby, the learned trial Judge allowed the application and adjourned the matter to 22/8/2022, whereas, the petitioner was unable to appear before the trial Court within 4 days and his counsel also failed to file an application under Sec. 317 Cr.P.C, therefore, the learned trial Court has issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner and pursuant to which, he was arrested from his residence on 19/1/2023 and he is in custody for more than 50 days. He also submitted that the petitioner is prepared to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that since the petitioner has failed to appear before the trial Court in C.C.No.174 of 2019 on 22/8/2022, a Non-Bailable Warrant of arrest was issued against him and pursuant to the same, he was arrested on 19/1/2023. He further submitted that the case now stands posted on 23/3/2023 for questioning the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and the co-accused is still absconding, therefore, if bail is granted to the petitioner, there is every possibility of him, to abscond again and would derail the progress of trial. Therefore, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.