Madras High Court
Balachandran vs State Represented By on 28 April, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Dated: 28/04/2022
PRESENT
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.4752 of 2022
Balachandran : Petitioner/A3
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Pamban Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime NO.171of 2021) : Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balamurugapandi
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshisundaram
Addl. Public Prosecutor
PETITION FOR BAIL under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C
PRAYER :-
C-32AB.For Bail in Crime No.171 of 2021 on the file
of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The petitioner, who is arrayed as A3 was arrested
and remanded to judicial custody, on 03.07.2021 for the
alleged offence under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of
NDPS Act, in Crime No.171 of 2021 on the file of the
respondent police, seeks bail
2.The petitioner is facing the charge for the
offences punishable under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C)
of NDPS Act.
3.Heard both sides.
4.The earlier bail application filed by this
petitioner came to be dismissed by this court on the
ground that the petitioner has not satisfied the twin
conditions of section 37 of the NDPS Act, since the
contraband involved is a commercial quantity. Even at the
first instance, it was submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is in
custody for more than 230 days, observing that the final
report has been filed before the concerned court, with a
direction the above said petition was dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.Now this petition has been moved on the ground
that he moved the bail application before the concerned
trial court, but that came to be dismissed. At the time
of argument, it was submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was in
custody for more than the statutory period prescribed
under the provisions of NDPS Act and on that date, the
final report was not filed before the concerned court.
For that purpose, he relied on several judgments.
6.Nothing that such a ground has been advanced, a
report has been called for from the Special Court and the
report has been submitted by the Special Judge stating
that A1 and A2 were arrested and remanded to custody, on
04/07/2021 and final report was filed, on 28/12/2021,
which was well within a period of statutory period. A
memorandum was issued on 31/12/2021 for rectification of
defects and rectification charge sheet was also
submitted, on 25/02/2022. According to the Special
Judge, final report was filed within a statutory period.
On seeing this report, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in
custody for more than 300 days and except the confession
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
statement of the co-accused, no other materials are
available and since one of the co-accused is absconding,
the trial could not be started immediately.
7.But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
submit that a direction may be issued to the Special
Court to split up the case against the petitioner and
other accused can be proceeded in accordance with law.
Since the petitioner is in custody for more than 300
days, it appears that this is a reasonable statement.
8.Considering fact that the contraband involved in
the case is a commercial quantity, there shall be a
direction to the Special Court to split up the case
against the petitioner and other accused persons and
proceed in accordance with law and complete the same
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of
the copy of this order. Liberty is also granted to the
petitioner to move the Special Court for bail, if the
trial could not be completed within time.
9.With the above said liberty, this criminal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
original petition is dismissed.
(G I J)
28.04.2022
ER
Note : In view of the present
lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order that
is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the
responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
G.ILANGOVAN ,J
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP(MD)No.4752 of 2022
28/04/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
