S.John vs Union Of India

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 19.11.2023 for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(c), 28 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, in R.R.No.57 of 2023 (F.No:48/1/22/2023-NCB/MDS) on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that, on 16.11.2023, based on specific information, the officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai, intercepted the accused and, after complying with the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act, effected seizure of 1.035 kgs of Hashish (Charas). The petitioner was subsequently examined under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and based on the materials collected during investigation, he was remanded to judicial custody on 19.11.2023.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and no contraband was recovered from him. According to him, the implication of the petitioner is solely based on the alleged confession recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. He further submitted that the co-accused (A1), from whom the alleged recovery was made, has already been granted bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.844 of 2026 dated 27.02.2026. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent opposed the bail application contending that the seized contraband constitutes commercial quantity and therefore the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted. Relying on the inventory report, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

This Court has also perused the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.844 of 2026 dated 27.02.2026, wherein the co-accused (A1) was granted bail. The relevant observations made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said order are extracted hereunder:

“5. This Court has perused the inventory report, wherein it is recorded that the contraband seized from the petitioner herein was marked as P1 (1.035 kgs.), whereas at the time of producing the contraband before the Magistrate concerned, the respondent has quantified the contraband as 1.031 kgs. However, there is no material to show that, how the respondent has come to the conclusion that the weight of contraband seized is 1.031 kgs. Further, the contraband was weighed before the Magistrate concerned along with the cover, which was packed by the respondent herein at the time of seizure. Similarly after taking the sample, the weight along with the cover is also recorded. Admittedly, at the time of seizure, the contraband is alleged to have been weighed as 1.035 kgs, which is inclusive of the scotch tape wrapping along with the silver foil food case and the weight of this tape cover along with silver foil food case was not weighed separately, and no where it is recorded or stated that, what is the exact quantity of the contraband seized, after removing silver foil food case and the tape.

Considering the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of reduce in the quantity alleged to have been seized from the petitioner herein so as to bring down to 1 kg. and the petitioner has no previous antecedents, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions:”

In the present case, it is seen that the petitioner has been implicated primarily on the basis of the alleged confession statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and no contraband has been recovered from him. Further, the co-accused (A1), from whom the alleged recovery was made, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.844 of 2026 dated 27.02.2026. Considering the same, this Court is inclined to grant parity to the petitioner and enlarge him on bail, subject to 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 each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Special Court under EC and 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 Trial Court concerned 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.