Syed Rizwan vs The State

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.06.2025, seeking regular bail in connection with C.C.No.1173 of 2025 in Crime No.136 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 21 kgs of Ganja packed in two separate bags, one packet weighing 10 kg marked as P1, and another packet weighing 11 kg marked as P2, and hence the case was registered against him as the sole accused.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entirely innocent of the allegations and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the Arrest Memo furnished by the respondent was entirely in the Tamil language, and since the petitioner is a non-native resident who is not conversant with Tamil and is only acquainted with the Hindi language, the grounds of arrest were neither translated nor explained to him in his known language, which stands in clear violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and completely vitiates the continued detention.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the alleged recovery of 21 kg is a gross weight taken along with the plastic packaging materials, and as per Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act and the ratios laid down by this Court in Ganesan v. State and Senthilkumar v. State, the term "Ganja" means only the flowering or fruiting tops to the strict exclusion of leaves, stalks, stems, and packaging bags. He points out that since the contraband was weighed dynamically with the bags, the actual weight of the prohibited flowering tops falls well below the commercial threshold of 20 kg, thereby neutralizing the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. He further highlights that the petitioner has been languishing in continuous judicial custody for over 15 months since 22.06.2025, and though the charge sheet was filed on 09.10.2025, not even a single prosecution witness has been examined till date, which amounts to a severe infraction of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He also adds that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family, having a wife who is presently bedridden with serious health ailments and four minor children who are left without livelihood.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent opposed the grant of bail, citing that the seized quantity is 21 kg, which is a commercial quantity, but he does not dispute the factual position that the trial has not commenced, the petitioner has undergone 15 months of incarceration, and that the packaging weight was included in the initial gross weight recording.

Hearing the submissions and perusing the materials on record, this Court takes serious note of the fact that the petitioner has undergone more than 15 months of pre-trial detention with absolutely zero progress in the trial. It is a settled legal position that statutory restrictions cannot be used to completely block an under trial prisoner's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India when the delay is not attributable to the accused. Furthermore, a combined reading of the procedural non-compliance regarding the translation of the arrest memo and the principles regarding the gross-versus-net weight of flowering tops established in the Ganesan and Senthilkumar rulings leaves room for reasonable doubt at this stage. Considering these cumulative factors, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

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 II Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under NDPS Act cases, Chennai, and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix her 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 her identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the Trial Court on all working days 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, 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 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.