Bail denied due to large drug quantity and petitioner's extensive criminal history despite procedural challenge claims.

ORDER

This petitioner is accused in C.C.No.70 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases Madurai. By judgment dated 20.12.2024, he was found guilty, convicted under Section 8(c) read with 20(b) (ii) (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, and in default, to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment. As against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, this petitioner has filed an appeal before this Court in Crl.A(MD)No.1124 of 2024 and the same has been admitted by this Court on 23.10.2025. Along with the appeal, the petitioner has filed this petition to suspend the sentence.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in possession of 21 kgs ganja on 29.008.2023 at about 12.30 hrs at S.Puliyankulam on Kappalur – Madurai Road and he was arrested and sent to judicial custody.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mandatory provisions under Sections 52A and 57 of the NDPS Act have not been followed. Though the prosecution claims that the petitioner was arrested in the presence of the customs officer, he has not been cited as a witness. The respondent has weighed the contraband along with leaves, stalk, stem. Further as per the FIR 50gms of sample have been taken for analysis, whereas the chemical report reveals the sample was 60 gms. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that the petitioner be considered for grant of bail.

4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner was found with possession of 21kgs of ganja. The petitioner is a notorious criminal and he is having 23 cases to his credit apart from this case, of which some of the cases are pending investigation and some of the cases are pending trial. If he is released on bail, he may not be available for the trial in other cases. In this case, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the trial court has rightly convicted the petitioner.

5.This court has considered the rival submissions made.

6. Considering the quantity of ganja involved in this case and the investigation and the trial in some cases are pending as against this petitioner, this court is not inclined to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.