Susanta Bej vs The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.08.2026 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in Crime No.75 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in possession of 2 kilograms of Ganja. Based on the said recovery, the respondent police registered the present case against the petitioner and other accused persons.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the total quantity of contraband alleged to have been recovered in this case is 2 kilograms of Ganja, which legally and strictly falls within the category of intermediate quantity. He strongly contended that the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that the petitioner has no previous case of any nature pending against him and has no adverse antecedents. Taking note of the clean antecedents and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner since 13.08.2026, he prayed for the enlargement of the petitioner on bail.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, submitting that the petitioner was found in possession of an intermediate quantity of Ganja. He, however, fairly admitted that the petitioner has no previous history or adverse cases listed against him.

Admittedly, the quantity of contraband involved in this case is 2 kilograms of Ganja, which falls under the category of intermediate quantity. Therefore, the stringent statutory bars and restrictive rigours governing the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present application.

It is also seen from the records that the petitioner has no previous case recorded against him, indicating clean antecedents. Considering the nature and quantity of the contraband involved, the fact that the statutory bar under Section 37 is not attracted, and evaluating the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner since 13.08.2026, this Court is highly inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to strict 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, out of which one shall be a blood surety and the other shall be a local surety, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 2, Salem, and on further conditions that:

[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;

[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.

Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.