Madras High Court
Marshall Tarence Raja vs The State Represented on 30 June, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Dated: 30/06/2022
PRESENT
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.7141 of 2022
Marshall Tarence Raja : Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
The State represented
by The Sub Inspector of Police,
NIB-CID, Nagapattinam,
(Crime No.03 of 2022)
(Velapalayam P.S
Crime NO.983 of 2021) : Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Senthil Kumar
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.3 of 2022 on the file of
the Respondent Police (Velapalayam P.S Crime No.983 of
2011).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ORDER : The Court made the following order:-
The petitioner, who is arrayed as sole accused was
arrested, on 03/11/2021 and remanded to judicial custody
for the alleged offences punishable under sections 8(c)
r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.03
of 2022 on the file of the respondent police (Velapalayam
P.S Crime No.983 of 2021), seeks bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on a secret
information, the police team went to the place of
occurrence namely near the compound wall of the
Government Medical College Hospital, Nagapattinam and in
front of AWPS, Nagapattinam and found that a private
Ambulance bearing registration No.TN-59-4852 was parked.
The petitioner was found standing near the Ambulance. On
seeing the police team, he tried to escape from that
place. He was apprehended and on enquiry and search, it
was found that 5 bags of Ganja, each weighing 40 kgs were
found and further processes were undertaken as per the
procedure. On that basis, the case was registered and the
petitioner was arrested and remanded to custody and
ever-since, he is in custody.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.Heard both sides.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the case of the prosecution is highly
unbelievable one. If really the intention of the
petitioner is to transport the Ganja in the Ambulance, he
would not have parked the same in front of All Women
Police Station. According to the petitioner, the story of
the prosecution is highly unbelievable one and no bad
antecedent is reported against him and on that ground, he
seeks bail.
5.But from perusal of the entire CD file and the
counter affidavit, that was filed by the respondent, it
is seen that the petitioner was apprehended in the place
of occurrence along with Ganja. It is further seen that
the private Ambulance has been used for the purpose of
transporting the Ganja from Andhra Pradesh etc. When huge
quantity of contraband has been seized and recovered at
the instance of the petitioner, naturally he has to
comply the condition set out in section 37 of NDPS Act.
Except stating that this petitioner is not having any
previous case and the story projected by the prosecution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is beyond belief, no other material or substance has been
brought on record. The manner in which, the offence said
to have been committed itself is sufficient enough for
denying the bail to the petitioner and if bail is
granted, there is no guarantee that he will not commit
any similar nature of the offence. In this case, final
report has been filed and taken cognizance in CC No.48 of
2022 by the trial court.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A.Najeeb
(Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2021) and would contend that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set out the general
principle that brought to be followed while granting
bail. He would further rely upon the para 13 of the
judgment, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while
comparing the provision of Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1989 and the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has observed that
for protecting the interest of the innocent people,
speedy trial has been contemplated. Time and again, it
has been stressed by various courts that speedy trial is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
a part of the fundamental right and there can be no
second opinion on the principle of law.
7.But here, as mentioned earlier, since the
petitioner was found in possession of the contraband,
which is a commercial quantity, section 37 NDPS Act has
to be strictly complied. So, this court cannot exercise
its jurisdiction. If at all only a direction can be
issued to the trial court to expedite the trial process.
8.In the result, this criminal original petition
is dismissed. But however, considering the duration of
the custody of the petitioner and final report has been
filed, there shall a direction to the trial court to
expedite the trial process and complete the same, within
a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
(G I J)
30.06.2022
ER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
To,
1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
NIB CID, Nagapattinam District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN ,J
er
Crl.OP(MD)No.7141 of 2022
30/06/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
