ORDER

It is the case of the petitioner that based on specific information that Methamphetamine is being illicitly carried by A-1, the Officers of DRI intercepted A-1, viz., Boominathan and one Valli while they were boarding a bus and after due enquiry, seized 10.561 Kgs., of substance, alleged to be Methamphetamine, a psychotropic substance and a mahazar was drawn by the respondent. Pursuant to the drawal of the mahazar, while A-1 was arrested and remanded to custody, the said Valli, was released. Subsequent to investigation and interrogating A-1, based on information given by A-1, the officers of DRI visited the house of the petitioner and from there seized 1475 gms., of white crystalline powder, alleged to be Ketamine along with Indian currency to the tune of Rs.24,96,000/- and also a Ford Eco Sports Car bearing Regn No.TN-10-AM-9777, which was alleged to have been used for the purpose of trafficking in narcotics. The statement of the petitioner was recorded and the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody.

2. It is the further averment of the petitioner that though the white crystalline powder was alleged to have been Ketamine, but the chemical analysis report returned a negative for the said seizure made at the house of the petitioner. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the amount of Rs.24,96,000/- alleged to have been the sale proceeds of drug trafficking, no material whatsoever has been placed by the respondent and allegations would not partake the character of proof. In view of the above, the remand of the petitioner is per se unsustainable and the rejection of the application for bail by the court below is on erroneous appreciation of materials and, therefore, the present petition is filed seeking the relief supra.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously contended that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case without any tangible material and that the statement of the petitioner recorded u/s 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be acted upon to remand the petitioner in judicial custody. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statement recorded u/s 67 cannot be taken into account for the purpose of remand and more so when the material alleged to have been seized from the petitioner has been negated to be Ketamine. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the seizure and recovery alleged to have been made from the house of the petitioner does not satisfy the mandatory provision u/s 42 of the NDPS Act.

4. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge of conspiracy put forth has not been established and in the absence of establishing the conspiracy charge, relying upon the uncorroborated statement of A-1 to implicate the petitioner is wholly impermissible. The conspiracy between the petitioner and A-1, Boominathan should be proved by substantial material and in the absence of the same, relying upon the evidence of Boominathan, viz., A-1, which statement is also hit u/s 67 of the NDPS Act, remanding the petitioner to judicial custody cannot be sustained.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also strenuously contended that the arrest of the petitioner has been done by an officer, who is not invested with powers u/s 42 of the NDPS Act and, therefore, the said arrest cannot be sustained.

6. In aid of his submissions, very many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court have been relied on by the learned counsel to substantiate his case that the prosecution/respondent has not placed any substantial material to show that a prima facie case exists against the petitioner. Accordingly, he pleads that the petitioner be released on bail by this Court.

7. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the plea made by the petitioner and submitted that though the statement recorded u/s 67 is barred for being placed reliance upon, however, it is not on