SENTHIL Vs. HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/A-4 in Crl.O.P.No.33041 of 2025, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 2/6/2025, for the alleged offence punishable under Ss. 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985 & Sec. 24(1) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA) in Crime No.355 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. The petitioner/A-5 in Crl.O.P.No.34272 of 2025, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27/6/2025, for the alleged offence punishable under Sec. 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985 & Sec. 24(1) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA) in Crime No.355 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

(2.) The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.33041 of 2025, is ranked as A4 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.34272 of 2025 was ranked as A1 (as per final report) was having godown at Sivanthi Athithanar Nagar and the godown was inspected by the police and the banned tobacco products to the extent of 3 1/2 tonnes were seized. Prior to seizure of banned tobacco products, the police on information, have intercepted the lorry driven by A3 in this case near Ambedkar Nagar, 400 feet road bridge and seized banned tobacco products and also 25 kgs of Ganja. Based on the statement given by the lorry driver, it revealed that he along with petitioners involved in transportation of banned tobacco products and also Ganja. Hence, A1, A3, A4, A5 and A6 were arrested on the same day and A7 still absconding.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners herein were involved in transportation and possession of tobacco products, the respondent have foisted the case of NDPS by adding 25 kgs of Ganja in the products seized from the lorry. He further submitted that this Court earlier while dismissing the bail application for A5 in Crl.O.P.Nos.31165 & 29981 of 2025 dtd. 18/11/2025 observed that NDPS Act is not applicable to the godown owner. He further submitted that as far as A4/cleaner is concerned he was not having knowledge about the transportation of ganja and he is not even given an opportunity to explain his case and no statements were recorded from him. Similarly except the statement recorded from the co-accused (A3 driver), no other material is available to implicate the accused No.4 in this case. He further submitted that though it is stated that 25 kgs of ganja was seized from the lorry, it is foisted and prays to grant bail to all the petitioners herein.