Murugan @ Lodu Murugan vs State Rep. By
2022 Latest Caselaw 11408 Mad

                                                         1

                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT


                                            ( Criminal Jurisdiction )
                                                Dated: 29/06/2022


                                                      PRESENT
                                       The Hon'ble   Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN


                                            Crl.OP(MD)No.6888 of 2022

                     Murugan @ Lodu Murugan                   : Petitioner/A1

                                                        Vs.

                     State rep. By
                     Inspector of Police,
                     Keerathurai Police Station,
                     Madurai City.
                     (Crime No.413 of 2021)                   : Respondent/Complainant

                                    For Petitioner     : Mr.J.Vijayaraj

                                    For Respondent     : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
                                                         Additional Public Prosecutor

PETITION FOR BAIL under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C

PRAYER :- C-32B.For Bail in Crime No.413 of 2021 on the

file of the Respondent Police.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

ORDER : The Court made the following order:-

The petitioner, who is arrayed as A1 was arrested

on 09/07/2021 and remanded to judicial custody for the

alleged offences punishable under sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)

(ii)(c), 25, 29(1) of NDPS Act and section 25(1-B)(b) of

Arms Act, in Crime No.413 of 2021, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution, as found in the

final report is that on 08/07/2021 at about 2.30 pm, the

police team went to the place of occurrence on secret

information and found the car bearing registration

No.TN-59-CK-3492. On suspicious, that was intercepted and

on search, the accused 1 to 5 were found in possession of

28 kgs of Ganja. The said car was driven by A1 and

another two wheeler was driven by the co-accused. It is

seen that this petitioner was arrested on the spot itself

along with the contraband.

3.Seeking bail, this petition came to be filed by

the petitioner that on the basis of the confession

statement of the co-accused, he was arrested and remanded

to judicial custody on 09/07/2021 and ever-since, he is

in custody. So, he is entitled for bail.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4.Heard both sides.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that considering duration of the custody and

following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya @

Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem Kumar Bhattacharya Vs.

National Investigation Agency [(2022)1 SCC (Cri) 442],

which is relevant factor and also in pari materia with

that of the offence under the provisions of NDPS Act,

which are now alleged against this petitioner, the same

analogy must be applied and the petitioner is entitled

for bail.

6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent would submit that the

petitioner is a known criminal and having 23 cases at his

credit. It is also listed out, which are pending against

the petitioner. Perusal of the list shows that most of

the cases are either assault, murder, criminal

intimidation, robbery and also the offence under the

provisions of NDPS Act. He would submit that such a

person is not entitled for the relief of bail. If he is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

released on bail, there is no guarantee that he will not

commit any offence of any nature. He would further submit

that it is the habitual nature of the petitioner to come

out on bail and commit the repeated offences.

7.The list shows that right from 2009, in a

regular interval, cases have been registered against the

petitioner. No doubt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

pointed out in the above said case that duration of the

custody for under trial prisoner is also one of the

criteria for considering bail. But in that judgment, that

was cited by the petitioner, the accused was in custody

for more than seven years and the trial could not be

commenced because of various reasons. Finding that there

is no possibility to complete the trial court within the

stipulated time, bail was granted. But here, it is

entirely different issue. The habitual nature of the

petitioner is sufficient enough to deny the bail. Apart

from that, it is also contended by the petitioner that

except the confession statement of the co-accused, no

other material has been collected or available to link

the petitioner to this case. But the facts narrated above

shows that he was arrested on the spot with contraband.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

8.Since final report has been filed by collecting

sufficient materials against the accused persons, it is

for the trial court to assess the evidence. If at all

only a direction can be issued to the trial court to

expedite the trial process.

9.In the result, this criminal original petition

is dismissed. But however, there shall be a direction to

the trial court to expedite the trial process and

complete same within a period of six months from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order.

29/06/2022

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.ILANGOVAN,J

er

To,

1.The Inspector of Police, Keerathurai Police Station, Madurai City.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Crl.OP(MD)No.6888 of 2022

29/06/2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis