Madras High Court
Chalapaka Lokeswara Prasad vs State Rep. By on 10 July, 2023
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
(Criminal Jurisdiction)
Dated: 10/07/2023
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.12071 of 2023
Chalapaka Lokeswara Prasad : Petitioner/A15
Vs.
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Dhakikombu Police Station,
Dindigul District.
(In Crime No.224 of 2022) : Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner : Mr.Y.Athiveerapandian
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.
PRAYER:-For Bail in Crime No.224 of 2023 on the file
of the Respondent Police.
ORDER: The Court made the following order:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The petitioner/A15, who was arrested and remanded to
judicial custody, on 04/08/2022 for the offences
punishable under sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 of
the NDPS Act, in Crime No.224 of 2022 on the file of the
respondent police, seeks bail.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
(i)On 28/07/2022 at about 01.00 pm, on secret
information received from the Police Informer and after
recording the information in Case Diary, the de-facto
complainant along with the Police Team, went near the EB
Colony Crematorium ground. At that time, they found 4
persons making some packets. When they were enquired,
they revealed their names as Vairavan(A1),
Muthukaruppan(A2), Sundarapandi (A3) and Naveen (A4).
(ii)On further enquiry, they revealed that they used
to purchase Ganja from Andhra Pradesh and selling the
same by making packets. Further process were undertaken
as per the procedure. On further search, they were found
in possession of 34 kgs of Ganja. They also informed that
they purchased the Ganja from one Murugan/A9. Through the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
above said Murugan, Arjunan/A8 and other accused persons
were known to them. They also revealed that A8 and A9
used to visit Andhra Pradesh and purchase Ganja in bulk
and they will distribute the same to them for the purpose
of selling. A1 to A4 were arrested on the spot and on the
basis of the statements recorded, a case was registered
in Crime No.224 of 2022.
(iii)Pending investigating, the involvement of the
petitioner came to light and he was implicated and
remanded to custody, on 04/08/2022 and ever-since from
his arrest, he is in custody. The final report was also
filed before the trial court.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that absolutely, no material has been
collected during the course of investigation to connect
this petitioner with the above said offence; As per the
case of the prosecution, Ganja has been recovered from
the possession of A1; The petitioner is doing real estate
business and not having any bad antecedent either of
similar offence or of any other offences; More than 300
days, he is in custody.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would
further submit that even the whatsapp details, which were
collected during the course of investigation, are not
admissible in evidence and without any basic materials,
he has been wrongly implicated in the offence. In
support of his contention, he would rely upon the
following judgments viz., (1)Bharat Chaudhary Vs. Union
of India (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1235); (2)Aryan Shah Rukh
Khan Vs. Union of India and another (2021 SCC OnLine Bom
4127); and (3)Yash Jayeshbhai Champakial Shah Vs. State
of Gujarat (2022 SCC OnLine Guj 271) for the purpose of
argument that whatsapp messages cannot be taken into
account for the purpose of showing, either any live link
between the petitioner and the co-accused. Apart from
that, it was also contended on behalf of the petitioner
that section 57 of the NDPS Act has been violated.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
submit that during the course of investigation, it is
revealed that this petitioner has involved in large-scale
selling of Ganja. From him only, the other accused
persons purchased Ganja from Andhra Pradesh and for the
purpose of selling, transporting the same to Tamil Nadu.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.Heard both sides and perused the materials
available on record.
7.It is seen from the records that to show the
involvement of the petitioner, there were whatsapp chats
made by this petitioner with the co-accused. The
evidentiary value of collecting materials, during the
course of investigation, can be tested only during the
trial. The photograph that was submitted by the
prosecution also shows that the petitioner was making
video chat with the co-accused.
8.Since in this case, large scale contraband ie., 34
kgs is involved, unless the petitioner is able to satisfy
the requirement under section 37 of NDPS Act, he is not
entitled for bail.
9.This is the third application. The first
application was dismissed, on 03/11/2022 and the second
application, on 21/01/2023. Reading of the above said
orders shows that elaborate discussion was made with
regard to the contact of the petitioner with the co-
accused. Finding that no ground was available to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner to satisfy the requirement under section 37 of
the NDPS Act, that applications were dismissed. Now this
third petition is filed on the ground of change of
circumstances that except the whatsapp chatting, no other
materials have been collected against the petitioner.
10.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
submit that the petitioner is habitually involved in
illegal smuggling of the contraband. He would also submit
that the petitioner is also involved in similar offences
on the file of the Ramanathapuram Town Police Station and
the above said case is pending before the Special Court,
Pudukottai. So, this fact has also been verified by going
through the CD file.
11.On going through the CD file, this court is
completely not in a position to accept the argument that
has been advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. So when the illegal smuggling of contraband
has taken place and huge quantity is involved in the
interstate smuggling, I am of the considered view that if
the petitioner is released on bail, he may again involve
in similar offence. There is no guarantee that he will
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not repeat or committee the similar offence. The conduct
of the petitioner does not indicate any good behaviour.
So, as stated earlier, the petitioner has not
successfully satisfied the required of law under section
37 of the NDPS Act.
12.Apart from that, it has been brought to the
notice of this court that in Crl.OP(MD)No.10737 of 2023,
dated 16/06/2023, this court directed the trial court to
complete the trial within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned
Additional Public Prosecutor would also submit that the
above said direction will be complied by the prosecution
by producing the witnesses. On that ground also, this
court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
13.In the result, this criminal original petition is
dismissed.
10/07/2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
pnm/er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To,
1.The Special Court for EC & NDPS Act cases,
Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Sellur Police Station,
Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
G.ILANGOVAN, J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
er
Crl.OP(MD)No.12071 of 2023
10/07/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
