BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Ninth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.14079 of 2011 SUNDARAJAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THANGACHIMADAM POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. CRIME NO.110/2011 ... COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT For Petitioner : M/S. N.MOHIDEEN BASHA Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl.Public Prosecutor(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.110 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, for offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (c) & 25 of NDPS Act. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.08.2011. He seeks bail. 2. According to the case of prosecution, the respondent intercepted the van, in which the petitioner and four other persons were travelling. When the van was chencked, it was found that a total quantity of 40 kgs of ganja was found. There were five persons in the van and all of them were taken into judicial custody. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner since there were five persons in the van, it should be considered that the petitioner is responsible only for 8 kgs of ganja. Thus, it is not a commercial quantity and therefore, according to the learned counsel, the impediment under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable to the petitioner. 4. In my considered opinion, the said contention cannot be countenanced. It is not the case of the prosecution as though the petitioner was not present in the car. It is the positive case of the prosecution that all the five persons were present in the car carrying 40 kgs of ganja. Therefore, each one is responsible for the contraband weighing 40kgs. Thus, the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is very much applicable to this case. Further, the petitioner does not make out any case to get over the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 5. Further, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is a Sri Lanka national. In my https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ considered opinion, Sri Lanka national is treated as guest in this country. He should not involve these kind of crimes and he should behave himself properly, so that the law and order is maintained in this Country. 7. In such view of the matter, it is not a fit case for granting bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Sd/- 09/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THANGACHIMADAM POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3 THE OFFICER IN CHARGE SUB JAIL, RAMANATHAPURAM 4 THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL, MADURAI ssk/12.11.2011 /5c -2p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14079 of 2011 Date :09/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/