BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Second day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15809 of 2011 SASIKALA : PETITIONER/ACCUSED Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALANGUDI POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.370/2011 : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.DEENADHAYALAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr. K.S.DURAIPANDIAN Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.370 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, for offence under Sections 8C r/w 20(b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.11.2011. He has come forward with this petition seeking bail. 2. Heard Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. According to the case of prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of 1.250 kgs of ganja. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would deny the above allegation. According to him, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the quantity of the contraband allegedly seized from the petitioner is not a commercial quantity and therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable. He would further submit that the petitioner has got permanent abode and she will not evade from the process of law. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the investigation is pending and the petitioner is not having any previous case. He would further submit that if for any reason this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, suitable conditions may be imposed. 6. I have considered the above submissions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the quantity of the contraband allegedly seized from the petitioner is not a commercial quantity and the petitioner has been in judicial custody from 20.11.2011 onwards and the petitioner is stated to be the mother of three children and she has to look after them. Further, this Court could see that if stringent conditions have been imposed for the secured presence of the petitioner, the petitioner can be released on bail. Considering the above facts, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, but with stringent conditions. 8. In the result, this petition is ordered and bail is granted to the petitioner on the following conditions: - (i) The Petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer Special Court for E.C and NDPS Act cases, Pudukkottai; and (ii) the Petitioner shall report before the respondent police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. Sd/- 02/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE/ PRESIDING OFFICER SPECIAL COURT FOR EC AND NDPS ACT CASES, PUDUKKOTTAI. 2. -DO- THRO' THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALANGUDI POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY. +1 CC to M/S. S.DEENADHAYALAN Advocate SR.No.42512 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15809 of 2011 Date :02/12/2011 NSV/2.12.11/2P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/