ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard both sides.

3. This is an appeal directed against an order denying bail to the appellants. The appellants are accused in a criminal case registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution case is that the police got information on 10-7-2003 at 10 p.m. that some drugs may be transported in a Hyundai Accent GLS car. On the basis of that information the police intercepted a car coming through Madurai Ring Road, Madurai, Chennai at ] 1.00 p.m. The car was driven by A-3 and the first appellant was found travelling in the car and a search was made and ganja weighing 5 kg and a sum of Rs 10 lakhs in cash were recovered from the car. The first appellant was arrested at 1.15 p.m. on 10-7-2003 and on the basis of aconfessional statement made by her, search was conducted in Building No. 4/1078-A of Bharat Street, Anbu Nagar, Madurai at about 1.15 a.m. on 11-7-2003. The second appellant was found staying in that house and she was also taken into custody at 1.15 a.m. Both the appellants were taken to the house at Chennai bearing No. 486-C and in that house it is alleged that ganja weighing ]0 kg and cash of Rs 1,00,18,000 were recovered. These appellants did not possess any licence to keep narcotic drugs. The case was registered against them under the NDPS Act.

4. The appellants preferred bail application before the Sessions Court. The same was rejected and aggrieved by the same, they preferred bail application under Section 439 CrPC before the High Court and the same was dismissed by the impugned order.

5. We heard Mr Kapil Sibal, the learned Senior Counsel for the first appellant and Mr K.Subramanian, the learned Senior Counsel for the second appellant and also Additional Solicitor General for the State. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the first appellant that the case against these appellants was falsely foisted on them and in order to support this contention, counsel drew our attention to the fact that on 10-7-2003 at 1.53 p.m. a telegram was sent by one Kandasamy to the Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, copy to Governor, Government of Tamil Nadu and another to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and the Inspector of Police, Police Station, Chennai and another telegram to Superintendent of Police, Madurai and copy to Inspector of Police, Anbu Nagar, Madurai. In the telegram, it is stated that a police party illegally entered into the house occupied by these appellants and taken them into custody and whereabouts are not known and he was afraid that there may be danger to their lives and that immediate action may be taken to safeguard their lives. This telegram is said to have been sent from Chennai. When the bail application was considered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, pursuant to request made by the Court, Kandasamy, who is alleged to have sent the telegram from Chennai filed an affidavit along with affidavits of two lawyers. ]n the affidavit it was alleged that they got information about the illegal detention of the appellants

6. The fact that such a telegram was sent and received is not disputed. a However, it is stated by the respondents that they could not find the whereabouts of Kandasamy. It is also pertinent to note that even though such a serious information was received by the police as per the complaint, no case was registered and no investigation started. From these facts, it appears that something happened on9-7-2003 and these are relevant factors for granting bail. We are conscious of the stringent provisions contained inSection 37 of the NDPS Act and we are also conscious of the fact that a charge has now been framed against the appellants and they have to face the trial.

7. It is pertinent to note that in the bail application of the appellants, it was alleged, that there was serious violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.

In the impugned order nothing is stated about the alleged violation of Section C 42, and it