Gopinath @ Gopi vs State Of Tamil Nadu

P. Dhanabal, J

The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.05.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C), r/w. 20(b)(ii)(c) & 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.100 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that on 07.05.2025 at about 23.00 a.m., on secret information the respondent went to the scene of occurrence. At that time they found the accused persons with 32 kgs. of Ganja.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The previous case stated by the prosecution was also registered on the same day. There is no recovery from this petitioner. Only based on the confession statement of the co-accused this petitioner was implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. The quantity involved in this case is commercial quantity. On the basis of the confession this petitioner has been implicated in this case. No contraband was recovered from this petitioner. The petitioner has one previous case. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed before the concerned Court. He vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, on the basis of the confession statement only this petitioner has been arrayed as an accused, though the quantity involved in this case is commercial quantity, no contraband was recovered from this petitioner, it was only recovered from the main accused, investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed before the concerned Court, though the prosecution has stated that the petitioner has one previous case, it was also registered on the same day and in that case also he was implicated on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused, and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court under EC & NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court under EC & NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, at 10.30 a.m., on all working days until further orders:

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.