Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2024) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19019
Decided on: 14.03.2024
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. M Yogesh Kanna, Adv., Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv., Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, AOR, Mr. S. Sabari Bala Pandian, Adv., Ms. Monica Saini, Adv.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29(1) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- No effective steps taken to conclude the trial -- Petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2022 and is in custody since then -- Bail declined, the Special Judge directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within six months.
(Para 5, 7)
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. The petitioner is one of the accused in FIR No.46/2022, registered under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), registered at Police Station Kavarapettai, District Tiruvallur.
3. The allegations are that on receipt of a secret information, a black colour Scorpio car coming from Andhra Pradesh was intercepted and a huge quantity of 230 kg. of Ganja was seized. The petitioner was also travelling in the said vehicle and he is alleged to have made confessional statement. His bail application was dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned order dated 21.11.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length and carefully perused the material placed on record.
5. The primary contention raised on behalf of the petitioner revolves around the zimni orders passed by the Trial Court on 58 dates running from 08.09.2022 to 21.02.2024. The contention raised by the petitioner is that no effective steps are being taken to conclude the trial and, thus, the petitioner has been subjected to indefinite incarceration. It may be noticed that the petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2022 and he is in custody since then.
6. The plea that the trial is standstill and is not effectively progressing was unfortunately not raised by the petitioner before the High Court. The High Court is the most effective forum where such a plea ought to have been taken so that the High Court could find out the laxity, if any, on the part of the prosecution or the police authorities in not producing the witnesses. The Trial Court could also be directed by the High Court to ensure the conclusion of trial in a time-bound manner.
7. Regardless thereto, we do not find it a fit case to release the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is, accordingly, declined. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Special Judge, Ist Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the NDPS Act, Chennai is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within six months.
8. The Commissioner of Police as well as the Public Prosecutor are directed to ensure the presence of the witnesses on the dates fixed. Counsel for the petitioner and other co-accused shall also extend full cooperation to the Trial Court in this regard.
9. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
10. As a result, the pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
Order accordingly.
********