Manoj Kumar & Anr. vs The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, PEW Flower Bazaar Police Station, Chennai District

This is a petition for bail in a case under the NDPS Act, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS. The petitioners are the second and fourth accused in Crime No.60 of 2026 on the file of the respondent, registered for offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the Act.

At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petition may be dismissed insofar as the second petitioner, Nandhakumar (A4), is concerned, and may be considered for the first petitioner, Manoj Kumar (A2), since the recovery attributed to him is a separate one. The petition is not pressed as against A4 and is dismissed to that extent. What follows concerns A2 alone, who is referred to as the petitioner.

The prosecution case is that on 22.07.2026, acting on information, the police intercepted A1 and the petitioner in an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.TN-05-AF-2004 near the public toilet at Jaffer Sarang Street. A travel bag held by A1 contained two parcels of ganja weighing 5.510 kg and 5.580 kg, that is, 11.090 kg, and these were seized from A1 with two mobile phones. Nothing was recovered from the person of the petitioner. The autorickshaw, which the first information report describes as kept by him to help conceal and sell the ganja, and his mobile phone were seized under a separate mahazar. The confession statements recorded from A1 and the petitioner are said to state that A3 to A5 had brought ganja from Odisha, had given A1 the two parcels he had asked for, and were waiting near the BSNL Ground at Vyasarpadi with the rest of their ganja. The police went there the same afternoon. A1 identified A3 to A5, and 22.125 kg of ganja was seized from A3, 3.920 kg from A4 and 4.865 kg from A5, each from a bag he carried and under a separate mahazar.

For ganja, the commercial quantity is 20 kg, under entry 55 of the Table to Notification S.O.1055(E) dated 19.10.2001. The 11.090 kg found in the autorickshaw is an intermediate quantity. The case is treated as one of commercial quantity by adding to it the 30.910 kg seized at the BSNL Ground. The counter affidavit gives the total as 43.430 kg. Section 37 of the Act is engaged against the petitioner only if the ganja seized from A3 to A5 can be put to his account.

The petitioner was arrested on 22.07.2026 and remanded on 23.07.2026, and has been in custody since. The investigation is not complete. According to paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, more witnesses are to be examined and bank statements are to be collected and analysed. The counter affidavit does not attribute any previous case to the petitioner. His petition for bail before the Special Court was dismissed on 13.08.2026. This is his first petition before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no contraband was recovered from the petitioner; that the case against him rests on his presence with A1, the seizure of the autorickshaw and his mobile phone, and the statements of the accused; that the seizures at the BSNL Ground were made separately, from other persons, at another place; that the quantity found in the autorickshaw is an intermediate quantity; and that the petitioner has no previous case.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) opposed the petition on the counter affidavit. It is stated there that the ganja seized in the case is of commercial quantity and that the bar under Section 37 applies; that the statements of the accused disclose their connection in procuring and transporting the ganja; and that the role of the petitioner was to facilitate its transportation in his autorickshaw. Paragraph 4 of the reply to the grounds reads:

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed before me.

Section 29 of the Act makes a person who abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence punishable under Chapter IV liable to the punishment provided for that offence. The contraband seized from one accused may be put to the account of another only where there is material of abetment, conspiracy or joint possession. Where two persons were found together but each was individually carrying what was recovered from him, and there was no evidence of abetment or conspiracy, Section 29 was held not attracted, as held in Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 7 SCC 550. To club the contraband recovered from different accused, "positive proof to support the charge of conspiracy had to be presented. Such proof could not be substituted with mere inferences or conjectures", as held in Nadeem Ahamed v. State of West Bengal, 2025 INSC 993. At the stage of bail, where the only material for adding together separate recoveries is the confession statements, each recovery has to be considered on its own, as held in B. Saroj Kumar Patra v. State, Crl.O.P.No.11720 of 2026, order dated 29.07.2026, and followed by this Court in Adhithya v. State, Crl.O.P.Nos.24297, 24177 and 24298 of 2026, order dated 21.09.2026.

The ganja in the autorickshaw was in A1's bag and was seized from A1. The seizures at the BSNL Ground were made some hours later, at another place, from three other persons, each from a bag he carried and under a separate mahazar. There is no common container and no common stock. The first information report itself describes the ganja at the BSNL Ground as the remaining ganja of A3 to A5. What connects the petitioner to that ganja is the confession of A1 and of the petitioner. So much of it as led the police to the BSNL Ground may be proved as information distinctly relating to the fact discovered. The fact discovered is that A3 to A5 were at that place with ganja, and it was A1 who identified them. The proviso does not carry the rest of the confession, with its account of the purchase in Odisha, into evidence, and the discovery does not by itself make the ganja carried by A3 to A5 the petitioner's. No call detail record or money trail has been placed. The bank statements are yet to be collected.

The counter affidavit puts the role of the petitioner no higher than facilitating transportation in his autorickshaw. Paragraph 5 of the reply to the grounds states that

Those are indeed questions for the trial. For the present, the quantity that can prima facie be attributed to the petitioner is at most the 11.090 kg found in the autorickshaw, which is an intermediate quantity. On this record, Section 37 of the Act is not attracted to the petitioner, and his petition falls to be decided on the ordinary principles governing bail. Whether a conspiracy covering the whole quantity is made out will be decided at the trial on the evidence led there.

The petitioner has been in custody since 22.07.2026. The autorickshaw and his mobile phone are already with the police. The investigation that remains, as set out in the counter affidavit, is the examination of witnesses and the collection of bank statements, and his custody is not shown to be needed for either. No previous case is attributed to him.

A4 stands on a different footing. He was found at the BSNL Ground together with A3 and A5, at the place to which the information led. His petition has not been pressed, and nothing said in this order bears on his case.

Legal position: Where an accused crosses the commercial quantity only if the contraband seized from others, at another place, from their own bags and under separate mahazars, is put to his account, and what links him to it is a confession to the police and a discovery that shows no more than the possession of those others, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not engaged against him at the stage of bail.

In the result, the petition is dismissed as not pressed insofar as the second petitioner/A4 is concerned.

The first petitioner/A2 is ordered to be released on bail upon 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 Principal Special Court under the EC & NDPS Act, Chennai, subject to the following further conditions:

[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 first petitioner/A2 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10:30 A.M. until further orders;

[c] the first petitioner/A2 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the first petitioner/A2 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 first petitioner/A2 in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the first petitioner/A2 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.