Saba @ Sabarathinam vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By In

2026:MHC:2302
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6519 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.06.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl.MP(MD)No.6519 of 2026
in
Crl.A(MD)No.452 of 2024
Saba @ Sabarathinam : Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
S.S.Colony Police Station,
Madurai District.
Cr.No.2361/2020 : Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 430(i) BNSS to suspend the
sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai,
in C.C.No.231 of 2021, dated 29.02.2024 and enlarge the petitioner on
bail.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.A.Gouthaman
For Respondent : Mrs.V.Moushika,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
*
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 02:40:37 pm )

Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6519 of 2026
ORDER
This application has been filed to suspend the sentence imposed on
the petitioner / first accused by the learned Judge, Special Court for
NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, in C.C.No.231 of 2021 dated 29.02.2024.
2.The petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.231 of 2021 on the
file of the learned Additional District Judge, I Additional Special Court
for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai. He was tried for the offences under
Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred as “NDPS Act”) and
the trial Court by its judgment dated 29.02.2024 convicted the petitioner
and the accused nos. 2 and 3 for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)
(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced them to undergo 14 years rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 years and
acquitted them for the offences under Sections 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS
Act and acquitted the accused nos.4, 6 to 8 from all the charges.
2/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 02:40:37 pm )

Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6519 of 2026
3.Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence, the first accused has preferred Crl.A(MD)No.452 of 2024 along
with an application for suspension of sentence in CRL.MP(MD)No.5457
of 2024 and this Court has dismissed the same by its order dated
19.09.2025. This is the second application seeking suspension of
sentence.
4.The case of the prosecution is that on 25.10.2020 at about 12:00
pm at Madurai Town, Madakkulam Main Road, near Koravaikkal
Junction, accused nos.2 and 3 were found in possession of two gunny
bags, one containing 10 parcels and the other containing 11 parcels,
totally 21 parcels weighing 42 kilograms of contraband and it was kept
in the dicky of a silver color Maruthi Suzuki Swift car bearing
Registration No.TN-38-AQ-4151. They have informed the respondent
police that the accused nos.2 to 8 were led by the petitioner and they
frequently went to Andhra Pradesh to purchase Ganja and stored the
same at Vyasarpadi, Chennai and they would hand over them to the
persons to whom the petitioner directs.
3/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 02:40:37 pm )

Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6519 of 2026
5.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mandatory
provisions under Sections 42(2), 50(1) and 57 of the NDPS Act were not
followed in this case. According to him, the prosecution did not examine
any independent witnesses and that the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses is full of contradictions.
6.He further submitted that there was no recovery of contraband
from the petitioner. The prosecution has not collected any call data
records or any other materials connecting the petitioner with the other
accused, excepting the alleged confession statement of two accused
persons. Moreover, the contraband was sent to the trial Court with an
unexplained delay of 39 days. As per the decision of the Hon'ble
Union of India v. Mohanlal 2016 (3) SCC 379
Supreme Court in [ ], the
process of drawing samples ought to be held in the presence of a
Magistrate as per Section 52(A)(2)(c) of the NDPS Act, which was not
done in this case.
7.According to him, the petitioner is having a good chance of
succeeding in appeal, however, he is in jail for more than four years.
4/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 02:40:37 pm )

Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6519 of 2026
Though the appeal preferred by him has been admitted, the same has
not been taken up for final disposal and the petitioner is still languishing
in jail.
8.With regard to the antecedents, by placing reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhimanue v. State of Kerala
[ 2025 SCC Online 2037 ], learned Counsel contended that the presence of
criminal antecedents by themselves alone cannot constitute a ground for
the denial of bail. Therefore, he prayed for suspending the sentence.
9.On the contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
appearing for the respondent police has opposed the grant of bail to this
petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is having 23 cases, out of
which 7 cases were registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The
details of the cases are furnished before this Court and the same is
extracted as under:
S.No. Police Station Crime No. / Sections of Law / Case Details
Cr.No.680/2020 – U/s 25(1A) Arms Act, 20(b)(ii)(B),
8(c) NDPS Act – CC No.550/2021 dated 18.11.2021 by
1 Thideer Nagar PS
EC Court, Madurai
Subramaniapuram
2
Cr.No.1453/2020 – U/s 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29(1), 8(c) NDPS
PS
Act
5/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 02:40:37 pm )

Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6519 of 2026
S.No. Police Station Crime No. / Sections of Law / Case Details
Cr.No.607/2019 – U/s 20(b)(ii)(C), 8(c) NDPS Act @
3 B4 Keeraithurai PS
20(b)(ii)(B), 25, 29(1), 8(c) NDPS Act – PT CC No.
314/2019 dated 26.08.2019, EC Court, Madurai
Cr.No.349/2017 – U/s 147, 148, 302, 341, 506(ii) IPC @
4 B4 Keeraithurai PS
120B, 147, 148, 302, 341, 506(ii) IPC – PT PRC No.
43/2017 dated 08.08.2017 before JM-IV, Madurai
Cr.No.396/2018 – U/s 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302, 506(ii),
5 B4 Keeraithurai PS
120B IPC (NTF)
Cr.No.877/2021 – U/s 3 & 4 of Explosive Substances
6 B4 Keeraithurai PS
Act, 1908
Cr.No.447/2008 – U/s 307, 506(ii) IPC – SC No.89/2009
7 B4 Keeraithurai PS
dated 08.12.2009 – Acquitted on 24.09.2014
8 B4 Keeraithurai PS Cr.No.674/2011 – U/s 120B, 323, 341 IPC.
Cr.No.90/2015 – Man Missing @ U/s 147, 148, 201, 302,
9 South Gate PS
364 IPC @ 147, 148, 149, 201, 302, 364 IPC
Cr.No.165/2019 – U/s 302, 341, 506(ii) IPC @ 109, 114,
120B, 147, 148, 149, 201, 302, 506(ii) IPC – PT SC No.
262/2022 dated 26.08.2022 before Addl. Sessions Court-
10 South Gate PS
I, Madurai
Cr.No.544/2019 – U/s 4(1)(A), 4(1)(aaa) of Tamil Nadu
11 Madurai City PEW
Prohibition Act
Cr.No.11/2015 – U/s 109, 120B, 147, 148, 149, 202, 216,
CBCID Madurai
12
302, 34, 341, 342 IPC and Section 3(1) TNPPDL Act @
212, 216, 149, 342, 302, 34, 341, 109 IPC and Section 3(1)
City PS
TNPPDL Act 120(B), 147, 148, 148 IPC
Sikkal PS,
Ramanathapuram
Cr.No.72/2016 – U/s 147, 148, 294(b), 302, 212, 120B
13
IPC – PT SC No.174/2022 dated 03.08.2022 before
District
Principal Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram
Paramakudi Town
14
Cr.No.96/2021 – U/s 20(b)(ii)(C), 8(c) NDPS Act
PS
Cr.No.590/2021 – U/s 120B, 147, 148, 294(b), 307, 324,
341 IPC & Section 3 of TNPPDL Act @ 109, 120B, 147,
15 Paramakudi PS
148, 149, 294(b), 302, 307, 324, 341 IPC & Section 3 of
TNPPDL Act
Cr.No.604/2017 – U/s 147, 148, 302, 324, 341, 506(ii) IPC
@ 120B, 147, 148, 302, 324, 341, 506(ii) IPC – SC No.
424/2019 dated 22.10.2019 – Acquitted by Addl. Dist.
16 Theppakulam PS
Sessions Court-I, Madurai on 06.04.2023
6/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 02:40:37 pm )

Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6519 of 2026
S.No. Police Station Crime No. / Sections of Law / Case Details
Cr.No.1746/2010 – U/s 387, 506(ii) IPC – CC No.
17 Theppakulam PS
294/2010 dated 14.12.2010 – Acquitted by JM-I,
Madurai on 23.05.2011
Cr.No.1110/2010 – U/s 392, 397 IPC – SC No.57/2011
18 Theppakulam PS
dated 22.02.2011 – Acquitted by JM-I, Madurai on
27.01.2012
Cr.No.1105/2011 – U/s 323, 324, 341, 506(ii) IPC –
19 Theppakulam PS
Referred
Cr.No.324/2009 – U/s 397 IPC – SC No.49/2015 dated
10.03.2015 – Acquitted by Addl. District Judge Court on
V2 Avaniyapuram
20
PS
10.03.2015
V2 Avaniyapuram
21
Cr.No.332/2009 – U/s 392 IPC
PS
Cr.No.635/2021 – U/s 324, 341, 506(ii) IPC @ 109, 307,
22 Vilakkuthoon PS
341, 506(ii) IPC – PRC No.354/2022 dated 09.11.2022
before JM-I, Madurai
Cr.No.153/2018 – U/s 147, 148, 392 r/w 397, 294(b),
23 C3 S.S. Colony PS
506(ii) IPC & Section 25(1) of the Arms Act
10.She further submitted that there are two groups, this petitioner
is heading one group and that the other group is headed by one
Vellaikalai. Both groups have been involved in several criminal cases in
Madurai. In the event if the petitioner is released on bail, he might not
cooperate with the trial pending as against him in the other cases. Hence,
she prayed for dismissal of this application.
7/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 02:40:37 pm )

Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6519 of 2026
11.Considering that the cases registered as against this petitioner
during the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 are still pending without any
substantial progress, this Court, by order dated 18.06.2026, directed the
Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai, and the
Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, to file a report regarding the
reasons for the failure to proceed with the trials against this petitioner.
Pursuant to the same, they have filed reports before this Court.
12.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai has filed
a report stating that three murder cases are pending as against the
petitioner in the Ramanathapuram District in Crime Nos.590 of 2021, 74
of 2025 on the file of the Paramakudi Town Police Station and in Crime
No.72 of 2016 on the file of the Sikkal Police Station. All these cases are
pending trial and that a Special Monitoring Team headed by the
Superintendent of Police, Ramanthapuram has been set up on 21.06.2026
for day-to-day monitoring of the trial proceedings and to expedite the
trial in the above cases. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Ramanathapuram Range would review the progress made by the Special
Monitoring Team every month till the completion of the trials.
8/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 02:40:37 pm )

Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6519 of 2026
13.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City has also filed a
report stating that the petitioner is A+ Category History Sheeter and is a
notorious gang leader in Madurai. According to him, three murder cases
are pending against the petitioner in Madurai limits in Crime Nos.349 of
2017, 396 of 2018 on the file of the Keeraithurai Police Station and in
Crime No.165 of 2019 on the file of the B5 South Gate Police Station and
all these cases are pending trial. He claimed that the petitioner and the
co-accused are not cooperating with the trial proceedings pending as
against them and are habitually absconding by taking turns to remain in
hiding, which has led to the persistent delay in the trials as against them.
He also stated that periodical review of the cases as against the petitioner
is being undertaken to ensure speedy trial.
14.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and perused the materials on record.
15. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections
8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act that the petitioner was the leader of
9/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 02:40:37 pm )

Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6519 of 2026
the other accused and they frequently went to Andhra Pradesh to
purchase Ganja, on his instructions and that they would store the same
at Vyasarpadi, Chennai and hand over the Ganja to the persons directed
by the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is a A+ Category History
Sheeter and has 23 cases pending against him, out of which 7 cases are
murder cases under Section 302 IPC.
16.No doubt, the petitioner is in jail for nearly 4 years in this case
as pointed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the appeal filed
by him though admitted by this Court on 12.06.2024 has not been taken
up for final disposal. Hence, his personal liberty has been curtailed to
some extent. However, the petitioner is also implicated in 23 other cases,
out of which, seven murder cases are pending for trial. The cases as far
back as 2015 are pending for more than 10 years for want of appearance
of accused and due to delay caused by the investigating agency.
17.The Courts are obligated to protect the rights of the accused
persons and protect their personal liberty pending disposal of the
criminal appeal. At the same time, the Courts are also answerable to the
10/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 02:40:37 pm )

Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6519 of 2026
victims in the murder cases, wherein the right to life of those victims was
allegedly taken away by the petitioner and other accused.
18.Some of the cases registered against the petitioner are pending
even without framing of charges and according to the reports filed by
the Inspector General of Police, South Zone and the Commissioner of
Police, Madurai City, in some of these trials, the petitioner and other
accused are continuously failing to cooperate with the trial proceedings
pending as against them and are habitually absconding by taking turns
to remain in hiding. Therefore, the apprehension of the respondent
police that the petitioner may not be available in the other cases, in the
event if he is released on bail, is a reasonable one and is a relevant factor
that has to be considered by this Court.
19.It is relevant to note that suspension of sentence is a
discretionary power of this Court and not a vested right of the accused.
In Angana v. State of Rajasthan [ (2009) 3 SCC 767 ], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that the discretion to suspend the sentence is to
be exercised judiciously depending on the facts and circumstances of
11/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 02:40:37 pm )

Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6519 of 2026
each case, the basis of nature of the offence and manner in which
occurrence had taken place. Further, in Narcotic Control Bureau v.
Lokesh Chadha [ 2021 SCC Online SC 178 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that there is no presumption of innocence when considering
post-conviction bail and that there must be strong and compelling
reasons for grant of suspension of sentence. The relevant portions are
extracted as under:
“9. ... Where the trial has ended in an order of conviction, the
High Court, when a suspension of sentence is sought under Section
389(1) of CrPC, must be duly cognizant of the fact that a finding of
guilt has been arrived at by the Trial Judge at the conclusion of the
trial. This is not to say that the High Court is deprived of its power to
suspend the sentence under Section 389(1) of CrPC. The High Court
may do so for sufficient reasons which must have a bearing on the
public policy underlying the incorporation of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act. At this stage, we will refer to the decision of a two-Judge Bench
of this Court in Preet Pal Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh where
Justice Indira Banerjee, speaking for the Court, observed as follows:
“35. There is a difference between grant of bail under
Section 439 of the CrPC in case of pre-trial arrest and
suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the CrPC and grant
of bail, post-conviction. In the earlier case there may be
presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental postulate of
12/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 02:40:37 pm )

Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6519 of 2026
criminal jurisprudence, and the courts may be liberal, depending
on the facts and circumstances of the case, on the principle that
bail is the rule and jail is an exception, as held by this Court in
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr. (supra).
However, in case of post- conviction bail, by suspension of
operation of the sentence, there is a finding of guilt and the
question of presumption of innocence does not arise. Nor is the
principle of bail being the rule and jail an exception attracted,
once there is conviction upon trial. Rather, the Court
considering an application for suspension of sentence and
grant of bail, is to consider the prima facie merits of the
appeal, coupled with other factors. There should be strong
compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an
order of conviction, by suspension of sentence, and this
strong and compelling reason must be recorded in the
order granting bail , as mandated in Section 389(1) of the
Cr.P.C.” ... ”
20.In the present case, there is already a finding of guilt as against
the petitioner by the trial Court. Moreover, it is relevant to note that this
petitioner has previously filed an application for the suspension of this
sentence in CRL.MP(MD)No.5457 of 2024 and this Court has dismissed
the same by its order dated 19.09.2025. In the said decision, this Court
13/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 02:40:37 pm )

Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6519 of 2026
has cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ash Mohammad
v. Shiv Raj Singh [ (2012) 9 SCC 446 ], wherein it was observed that when
citizens were scared to lead a peaceful life and heinous offences were
obstructions in the establishment of a well-ordered society, the Courts
play an even more important role, and the burden is heavy and
emphasized on the need to have a proper analysis of the criminal
antecedents of the accused. Even though the petitioner claims that there
is a change in circumstances, he has failed to substantiate as to what are
the change in circumstances warranting the release of the petitioner on
bail.
21.No doubt, the existence of antecedents alone cannot be a ground
to reject bail. However, it is also a settled position that prior antecedents
is a relevant consideration along with other factors such as the nature
and gravity of offence, the materials available as against the accused, the
previous conduct of the accused and whether there is a strong and
compelling reason for the grant of bail. This Court is duty bound to
consider all these factors while considering the application of the
petitioner.
14/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 02:40:37 pm )

Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6519 of 2026
22.Considering the overall factors such as the serious nature of
allegations as against this petitioner, his prior antecedents, his previous
conduct of delaying trial in the other cases pending against him and also
the above referred decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is
not inclined to entertain this application for suspension of sentence. The
other arguments advanced by the petitioner's Counsel attacking the
prosecution case can be considered only at the time of final hearing of
the appeal. Therefore, this application is dismissed.
Since this Court is dismissing the petition for suspension of
sentence, Registry is directed to list the main appeal for final hearing
under the caption 'accused in jail cases'.
25.06.2026
Internet : Yes
gk
To
1.The Judge,
Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases,
Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
S.S.Colony Police Station,
Madurai District.
15/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 02:40:37 pm )

Crl.M.P.(MD) No.6519 of 2026
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
Crl.MP(MD)No.6519 of 2026
in
Crl.A(MD)No.452 of 2024
25.06.2026
16/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/06/2026 02:40:37 pm )