Jenifer vs The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner/A3, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.09.2026, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.376 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 278 and 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(a), and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with other co-accused, was found in illegal possession of 50 grams of Tapentadol tablets (100 mg each), consisting of a total of 1,512 tablets, which were allegedly recovered from the possession of A1.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entirely innocent of the allegations and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the contraband in question was recovered exclusively from the possession of A1, and no incriminating material was seized from the present petitioner/A3. Pointing out that the petitioner has undergone continuous incarceration since his arrest on 01.09.2026, and highlighting that the alleged quantity does not attract the stringent statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he prays for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner but does not dispute the factual position that the recovery was effected solely from A1, as well as the specific period of custody undergone by the petitioner/A3.

Considering the fact that the contraband was allegedly recovered only from the co-accused A1, that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted to the facts of the present case, and taking note of the period of continuous judicial custody undergone by the petitioner/A3 from 01.09.2026, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her 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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Alandur, and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix her 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 her 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, 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.