AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These two petitions under Section 483 of the BNSS seek bail in Crime No.57 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Veeranam Police Station, Salem City, registered for offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, and now pending as C.C.No.31 of 2026 on the file of the learned Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Salem. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.25911 of 2026, Raghul, is the third accused. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.26050 of 2026, Gopi, as per the final report,second accused. The petitions arise out of the same crime and were heard together, and they are disposed of by this common order.
The case of the prosecution is that on 08.03.2026, at about 12.30 hours, the then Inspector of Police, Tmt. Sangeetha, on secret information about the illegal sale of contraband, went with her team to the spot and found four persons together: the first accused Mayilraj with a TVS Jupiter two-wheeler, the second accused Gopi with a Taurus lorry bearing Registration No.TN 25 BC 3889, the third accused Raghul and the fourth accused Gowtham @ Ramachandran. On seeing the police they attempted to escape and were secured. On search, 4.638 kilograms of ganja in two bundles wrapped with khaki tape were recovered from the first accused, 11.380 kilograms in five bundles from Gopi, 4.308 kilograms in two bundles from Raghul, and 1.638 kilograms in one bundle from the fourth accused; in all, 21.964 kilograms. The contraband was seized under cover of mahazar in the presence of witnesses, and the first information report was registered.
The quantity recovered from each petitioner individually, 11.380 kilograms from Gopi and 4.308 kilograms from Raghul, is an intermediate quantity. The 21.964 kilograms recovered in the raid as a whole is a commercial quantity. Whether Section 37 of the Act governs these petitions therefore turns on whether the four recoveries can, for the purpose of bail, be read together.
The counter affidavits state that the accused were arrested on 08.03.2026.The Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Salem by the report dated 20.03.2026 detects cannabinoids in all the samples and certifies them to be ganja. The final report was taken on file as C.C.No.31 of 2026. According to the counter affidavits, the case stood posted to 08.10.2026 for the examination of L.Ws.1 to 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and that the case has been foisted on them for statistical purposes; that the procedure under Section 50 of the Act was not followed in conducting the search; that the petitioners have been in custody since 09.03.2026.
Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), opposed the petitions. He submitted that the seizure is of a commercial quantity and that the petitioners have not satisfied the twin conditions under Section 37 of the Act; that the call detail records show that Gopi was in contact with the first accused on ninety-four occasions and with each of the other two accused once, and that Raghul was in contact with Gopi once; that the investigation is complete, the final report has been taken on file and the trial is at the stage of examination of witnesses; and that if released the petitioners are likely to abscond and hamper the trial. As to antecedents, the counter affidavit lists three earlier cases against Raghul, all under IPC sections, two ended in acquittal and one pending trial. No antecedents are set out against Gopi.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed before me.
In a case of commercial quantity, bail is governed by the twin conditions in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, which are cumulative: the Court must have reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged, and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, and reasonable grounds means credible and plausible grounds, not a meticulous weighing of the evidence, as held in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, (2022) 18 SCC 374.
The four accused were found together at one place and at one time, each in possession of bundles of ganja wrapped in one and the same manner, with a lorry and a two-wheeler at the spot. The recoveries were made in one raid, under mahazars of the same afternoon. The call detail records set out in the counter affidavits show that Gopi was in contact with the first accused on ninety-four occasions and with Raghul and the fourth accused, and that Raghul was in contact with Gopi. Prima facie, this is material of one consignment of 21.964 kilograms carried by four persons in concert, and not of four strangers who happened to stand at one spot, each with his own parcel. Nadeem Ahamed v. State of West Bengal, 2025 INSC 993 does not carry the petitioners further: that was an appeal against conviction, decided on the evidence after a full trial, where beyond the fact that the two accused were found travelling together there was no material of concert at all. At this stage I am not weighing evidence; I am asking whether there are credible grounds to believe the petitioners not guilty of the offence charged, and the offence charged includes the conspiracy under Section 29(1). Whether the recoveries can ultimately be read together is a question for the trial, and it is left open. For the purpose of these petitions, Section 37 governs both.
The submission on Section 50 of the Act does not advance the matter at this stage. The typed documents themselves include a notice under Section 50 dated 08.03.2026, and the questions whether the provision applied to these recoveries and whether it was complied with are questions of evidence, to be decided at the trial. They are left open.
Nothing else has been placed before me on which I could entertain reasonable grounds for believing that either petitioner is not guilty of the offence charged. In terms of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, that I am not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are not guilty of the offence with which they are charged.
That leaves the custody of about seven months. The offence charged carries a minimum sentence of ten years. The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is to be exercised within the framework of Section 37 in a case of commercial quantity, and cannot be pressed into service solely on the ground of delay to override it, as held in State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, (2026) 7 SCC 513.
The legal position may be shortly stated: where contraband is recovered in one raid from several persons found together, and there is material of concert apart from their confessions, the aggregate of the recoveries governs the application of Section 37 of the Act at the stage of bail, even though the quantity recovered from each individually is below the commercial threshold; the final question of aggregation remains one for the trial.
In the result, both the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.