The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of bail provisions under the NDPS Act, particularly in cases where there is no recovery of contraband from the accused's possession and the absence of bad antecedents.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: For Bail in Crime No.31 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.)

1. The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, on21/01/2022 for the offences punishable under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 ofNDPS Act 1985, in Crime No.31 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, in CCNo.53 of 2023 on the file of the Principal EC & NDPS Court, Madurai, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution in brie f :-On 21.01.2022 at about 06.30 pm, based on the secret information received bythe Sub-Inspector of Police, he along with the police party went near V.Grand Hotel,Surveyor Colony, K.Pudur, Madurai Town. At that time, they saw a Nissan Carbearing Reg.No.TN-19-S-8580 coming from east to western side, driven byA1/Rajkumar. It was intercepted and on search, the respondent police found a whitecolour gunny bag in the back side of the car containing 8kgs of Ganja. On furtherenquiry, the respondent came to know that A2 namely Jeyakumar usually purchasedGanja from Andhra Pradesh for purpose of selling the same in the local area alongwith A3 to A5. On further investigation, the respondent police found two whitecolour gunny bags in A1''s rented house in T.M.Nagar 4th street, Uthangudi eachcontaining 19 kgs of Ganja.

3. After completing all the procedures contemplated under the NDPS Act, therespondent police seized the contraband totalling 46kgs of Ganja and arrested theaccused. During investigation it came to light that all the accused persons activelyinvolved in the drug trafficking. Hence the case.

4. This petitioner along with one Suhail Ahmed filed Crl.OP(MD)No.21413 of2022 seeking bail. Suhail Ahmed''s petition was heard in Crl.OP(MD)No.21903 of 2022and a common order was passed by this court, on 01/03/2023. After elaboratediscussion, the bail applications were dismissed.

5. It was submitted before this court that based upon the confession statement ofA1, this petitioner was arrayed as an accused. It was also submitted that at that thatwhen he was not involved in the above said offence, one Vinoth, who belongs toKadachanenthal was involved. Unable to find out the above said Vinoth, he waswrongly implicated. He has worked as a Trainee Professional Service Representativein Burgeon Private Limited and subsequently selected as Territory Business Mangerin Ind-Swift Limited Company and he worked in the Company for more than twoyears. He drawn salary amount of Rs.49,000/- and there was no necessity to him toinvolve in the above said offence. The quantity of the contraband involved in thiscase is 46 kgs. The identify of the petitioner was fixed on the basis of the call details.He gave a different story that it was a borrower and lender relationship. Apart fromthat, the banking transactions also took place between the petitioner and A1 and A4.

6. Para 17 of the above said order can be extracted herein for betterunderstanding of the issue:-

“17.It is the case of the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD) No.21413of 2022 that other than borrowed money as loan from A1 andreturning the same , there is no connection between them.Initially the petitioner had taken a plea that he is not the realaccused and one Kadachanenthal Vinoth is the actual accusedand he was falsely implicated in this case on mistaken identity. Itis the case of the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD) No.21903 of 2022 thathe is not all connected with the offence and that he had raised aplea that his remand itself was illegal and had challenged thesame and it had been negatived by the Hon’ble Division Benchof this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is the case of theprosecution that apart from the confession of A1, there are amplematerials in the form of CDR report, bank transaction and towerlocation to connect the petitioners with the crime and they haveconspired together and abetted the main accused in the crime ofdrug trafficking.”

7. In the concluding portion, it has been observed as under:-

“21.The allegation against the petitioners is th