Ajaya Singh vs State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, PEW, Tambaram Unit

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.12.2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, in Crime No.201 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that on the day of the incident, acting on a specific informant's identification, the respondent police intercepted the accused persons. The petitioner voluntarily produced two colored bags containing a total quantity of 21 Kilograms of contraband, suspected to be Ganja, which was subsequently seized by the authorities.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent police have already completed the investigation and laid the final report before the trial court, and the same has been successfully taken on file as C.C.No.609 of 2026. He further submits that the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody since 03.12.2025, covering a period of more than ten months. To overcome the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the learned counsel heavily relies upon the ratio laid down by this Court in Ganesan vs. The State Rep. by its Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal.(MD).No.212 of 2020), wherein it was observed that when a seized quantity marginally borders the commercial threshold, the strict mechanical mathematical aggregation without isolating the vegetative parts of the plant causes deep prejudice to the liberties of the accused. He further relies upon the principle in Senthilkumar vs. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police (Crl.O.P.No.24166 of 2026), to contend that since the investigation stands completed and the final report is taken on file, the custody of the petitioner cannot be extended indefinitely as a pre-trial punishment.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) opposes the grant of bail, highlighting that the seized contraband weighs 21 Kilograms, which constitutes a commercial quantity, thereby engaging the statutory rigour. However, he fairly concedes that the investigation is completed, the final report stands taken on file as C.C.No.609 of 2026, and the petitioner has no previous bad history.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the crucial change of circumstances namely that the investigation is complete and the final report has been taken on file as C.C.No.609 of 2026, the lengthy period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 03.12.2025, the legal principles enunciated in the full citations of Ganesan and Senthilkumar, and the fact that the trial is yet to commence, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned II Additional Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under NDPS Act, Chennai, and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix his photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure his identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the Trial Court on all working days at 10:30 A.M. until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial, and shall not maintain any contact with the witnesses to the occurrence, the officials dealing with the case, or any other person who might be connected to the occurrence;

[e] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.