Bommannan.S vs State By, Inspector Of Police

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.12.2025 for the alleged offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 22(c) and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No.292 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner along with other persons were found in possession of 2.5 kgs of Ganja and 66.14 grams of Methamphetamine. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner is in judicial custody since 26.12.2025; and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and sought for bail to the petitioner.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case, the petitioner along with other persons were found in possession of 2.5 kgs of Ganja and 66.14 grams of Methamphetamine and the charge sheet was filed. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

This is the third bail application. The petitioner has arrayed as A4. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed. After filing of the charge sheet this petition was filed now.

This case is that on secret information respondent police arrived at the scene of occurrence and found that the petitioner along with accused persons and recovered 66.14 grams of Methamphetamine and 2.5 kgs of Ganja. There are separate recovery magazars have prepared as against this petitioner, it has been shows that quantum of 2.5 kgs of Ganja has been recovered along with the cell phone. Even in the counter at page no.4 it has been specifically stated that only a quantum of 2.5 kgs of Ganja has been recovered from the petitioner. However, it is stated that he was deemed to be in conscious possession of commercial quantity of recovered Methamphetamine along with the other accused persons. There is no material to show that the nexus, joint possession or conscious possession of the recovered Methamphetamine along with the other accused. Though it is stated that in the counter affidavit that CDR details were available after filing charge sheet, on its perusal it is seen there is no material including CDR details and no witnesses have been cited to speak about the link or nexus of the petitioner along with others in respect of recovery of commercial quantity of Methamphetamine. In the absence of any such material to link this petitioner with other co-accused in respect of the recovery of commercial quantity of Methamphetamine. Section 37 of NDPS cannot be applied to the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

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, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai, and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their 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 their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily 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;

[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.