IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Monday, the Thirteenth day of June Two Thousand Twenty Two

PRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION Nos.11516, 11539 & 11558 of 2022

KHAJA NAWAS [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED

IN CRL.O.P.No.11516/2022 ]

KADHAR MOHIDEEN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED

IN CRL.O.P.No.11539/2022 ]

ROHITH MANIKANDAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED

IN CRL.O.P.No.11558/2022 ]

Vs

STATE REP. BY [ RESPONDENT

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE IN ALL PETITIONS ]

H5-NEW WASHERMENPET POLICE STATION,

CHENNAI

CRIME NO.155 OF 2022

For Petitioner : MR.R.JOHN SATHYAN, Advocate for

M/S.R.RAFI BABU Advocate

[CRL.O.P.Nos.11516 & 11539/2022]

M/S.C.BALAJI, Advocate

[CRL.O.P.No.11558/2022]

For Respondent : MR.A.DAMODARAN, Additional public Prosecutor

[IN ALL PETITIONS]

PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.11516 of 2022, who was arrested and

remanded to judicial custody on 10.03.2022 at the hands of the

respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20

(b) (ii) (b) r/w 22 (a) of NDPS Act @ 8 (c), 20 (b) (ii) (b) r/w 22

(a) 22 (c) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.155 of 2022 on the file of the

respondent Police, seeks bail.

2.The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.11539 of 2022, who was arrested

and remanded to judicial custody on 09.03.2022 at the hands of the

respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20

(b) (ii) (b) r/w 22 (a) of NDPS Act @ 8 (c), 20 (b) (ii) (b) r/w 22

(a) 22 (c) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.155 of 2022 on the file of the

respondent Police, seeks bail.

3.The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.11558 of 2022, who was arrested

and remanded to judicial custody on 06.03.2022 at the hands of the

respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w

20 (b) (ii) (B), 22 (a), 22 (C) of NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No.155 of

2022, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners were found

in illegal possession of banned Ganja and 65 grams of Methamphetamine.

Hence the complaint.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

second accused was taken into custody by the respondent police as

early as 04.03.2022 and he was shown as arrested on 09.03.2022.

Therefore, the respondent foisted a false case as against the

petitioner and remanded to judicial custody. He further submitted that

as far as A5 is concerned he was taken into judicial custody by the

respondent police as early as 07.03.2022 and thereafter, he was shown

as arrested on 09.03.2022 in the present case. He further submitted

that the respondent failed to comply the provisions as contemplated

under Section 50 of NDPS Act. The date of seizure and arrest is un-

trust worthy and doubtful for the reasons submitted that their arrest

were shown only on 09.03.2022, whereas, they were taken to illegal

custody as early as on 04.03.2022 and on 07.03.2022. Therefore, the

exemption as contemplated under Section 37 (B) of NDPS Act, is

satisfied and there are reasonable grounds for believing that

petitioners are not guilty of the offence as alleged by the

prosecution. He further submitted that in fact, they filed petition

under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to produce the CCTV footages in

Crl.M.P.No.3550 of 2022 and the same was allowed by the learned XV

Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. However, later the

respondent said that the particular date of CCTV footages was not

available. It shows that the respondent had t