NaveenKumar & Anr. vs The Inspector Of Police

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in connection with Crime No.373 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 22(a) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 and Section 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The case of the prosecution is that the respondent police intercepted the accused persons, totaling three in number, and found them in illegal possession of contraband weighing 50 grams of Ganja and 106 numbers of Tapentadol tablets. Consequent to the recovery and seizure, the petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused No. 1 (A1) and Accused No. 2 (A2), were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.08.2026.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated. He further submits that the quantity of contraband seized from the accused persons falls well within the category of intermediate quantity and does not attract the strict rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Crucially, the learned counsel brings to the attention of this Court that the co accused, arrayed as Accused No. 3 (A3), has already been enlarged on bail by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. Citing the principle of parity and the petitioners' long incarceration since 28.08.2026, he prays for the grant of bail.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) vehemently opposes the grant of bail. He submits that the petitioners were caught in joint possession of psychotropic substances and narcotic drugs. He heavily relies on the adverse antecedents of the petitioners and points out that both the petitioners (A1 and A2) are each involved in nine other previous cases of a similar and serious nature. He highlights that while the trial court extended leniency to A3, who has only two previous cases, the petitioners stand on a completely different footing as habitual offenders. He expresses strong apprehension that if released, the petitioners will abscond or re indulge in trafficking.

Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the case diary records.

It is a settled principle that parity cannot be applied blindly when the individual dynamic and criminal histories of the offenders differ fundamentally. The learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Chengalpattu, dismissed the bail applications of these petitioners primarily due to their extensive adverse track records, while granting relief to A3 who had a lighter background of two previous cases.

However, considering that the contraband seized, 50 grams of Ganja and 106 Tapentadol tablets, constitutes an intermediate quantity, and taking note of the significant period of judicial custody undergone by the petitioners since 28.08.2026, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners despite their nine previous cases, on the ground of parity and extended incarceration.

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court II, Alandur, 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10:30 A.M. until further orders;

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

[d] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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.