The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit any offence while on bail, as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to enlarge him on bail in connection with the case registered against him by the respondent in R.R. No. 4 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 22, 25 and 28 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (in short NDPS) read with Section 135 of Customs Act, 1962.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on the basis of a tip off received by them that a parcel weighing 50 kgs of substance covered under the NDPS Act is being transported from New Delhi to Chennai by M/s. Rama Trading Company, New Delhi to M/s. Sri Balaji Enterprises, Chennai through Railway Parcel Service Operator M/s. Kamadenu Express Cargo Movers, Chennai and arriving on 29.01.2013, the officials of the respondent inspected Kamadenu Express Cargo Movers, Chennai. During such search, the petitioner was interrogated by the officials of the respondent and he introduced himself as Proprietor of Kamadenu Express Cargo Movers. The petitioner also produced the relevant documentary records sought for by the officials of the respondent. During the course of examination, the officials of the respondent examined a parcel containing 50 kilograms of Methaguualone, a psychotrophic substance. After observing all the formalities, the officials of the respondent seized all the materials with relevant records and also issued summons to the petitioner for his appearance. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared and a statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded from him. The respondent thereafter arrested the petitioner and remanded him to judicial custody on 30.01.2013.

3. Upon arrest, the petitioner has filed Crl.OP No. 8198 and 14894 of 2013 before this Court and they were dismissed by this Court on 20.06.2013. Thereafter, the present petition seeking bail has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that there is a change of circumstances in the case. According to the petitioner, the investigating agency has now filed the final report in the case and it was taken on file as C.C. No. 4 of 2013 before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-II, Egmore, Chennai and therefore, present petition is maintainable.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the Criminal Case in C.C. No. 4 of 2013, the petitioner was arrayed as A-1, his brother Ramachandra Pandit and Somnath Pal were arrayed as A-2 and A-3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has given a statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act before the officials of the respondent and that was duly recorded. Thereafter, 11 specific questions have been posted to the petitioner to ascertain his involvement or knowledge about the transaction relating to the psychotrophic sybstance. The petitioner answered all the questions explaining his innocence and gave an exculpatory statement. Inspite of such statement and categorical assertion with regard to non-involvement, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the subsequent development in this case. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the brother of the petitioner, who was incharge of the Delhi office was arrested. Further, the person, who booked the consignment in the Delhi office was also arrested. The only person who is absconding in the present case is Shafi, who was supposed to come and collect the parcel from the petitioner at Chennai. However, the prosecution has not so far taken any steps to arrest Shafi. In any event, the petitioner is in judicial custody for more than a year and he is innocent.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contend that the petitioner has merely received the parcel at Chennai without knowing its content. Further, the brother of the Petitioner Ramachandra Pandit submitted a petition to the Deputy Director, DRI, New Delhi stating that as soon as the consignment in this case w