KANNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed for grant of bail under Sec. 439 of Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner along with two others is alleged to have committed an offence under Sec. 20 (b) (1) of Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as N. D. P. S. Act. The petitioner in his bail petition has averred as follows: 'the petitioner is the second accused in Crime No. 515 of 1994 of the Chinnamannoor Police Station, for the offence under Sec. 20 (b) (1) of N. D. P. S. Act. In that he has been implicated by the first accused maharajan, as the person who escaped, along with the third accused Gurusamy, driver of the Ambassador car MDA. 3767 which was halted and checked by the police party at Iyampatti Village about 5 kilometres from the Chinnamannoor Police Station at about 9. 00p. m. on 15. 10. 1994 and found to contain several packets containing in all about 241. 400 kg. of ganja. The police came with the first accused to the residence of the petitioner at Bodi on the morning of 16. 10. 1994 and as the petitioner was attending to his poultry business in the town, the police took away the younger brother Sugumar, who was a civil engineer doing private contract work. Upon hearing this, the petitioner with his father Mokkasamy went and appeared at the chinnamannoor Police Station on the evening of 16,10. 1994 and even though he declared his innocence, he was taken to custody and produced before the magistrate at his residence and remanded to 15 days custody in the Sub Jail, uthampalayam. The petitioner moved for bail before the learned Special sessions and District Judge, Madurai, which was dismissed by order in court in crl. M. P. No. 2343 of 1994 on 26. 10. 1994. Hence the petitioner moves this petition for bail.'

(2.) THE bail petition is opposed by the learned Public prosecutor, under Sec. 37 of N. D. P. S. Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and not at all involved in the alleged offence, under Sec. 20 (b) (i) of N. D. P. S. Act and he has been falsely implicated by the first accused. THE first accused is a habitual dealer in ganja business on a very large scale. He further submitted that at the time of the alleged occurrence, viz. , on 15. 10. 1994 at 9. 00 p. m. the petitioner was not at the spot. THE petitioner was having his poultry business and that on 14. 10. 1994 he was in his home-town engaging in his usual business. In support of the same, petitioner has filed affidavits of the local people as the only available mode to prove the same.

(3.) THE point for consideration is that when the investigation is at the initial stage and a person is arrested for the alleged offence under the N. D. P. S. Act, whether an elaborate enquiry should be held by adducing evidence including evidence in the form of affidavit for grant of bail, which in essence is exercise of discretion of the court.