The Court dismissed bail petitions for accused in NDPS cases involving 1200 Nitravet tablets. Despite arguments that the quantity was non-commercial, the Court held the seizure was part of a larger distribution network involving courier deliveries to absconding accused, making the quantity irrelevant for bail purposes.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.Nos. 3370 & 4536 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 27.02.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 06.03.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos. 3370 & 4536 of 2024
Crl.O.P.No. 3370 of 2024
Rajaram ... Petitioner/ A-2 Vs. The State represented by The Inspector of Police Kodungaiyur Poilce Station Chennai. (Cr.No. 742 of 2023). ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Cr.No. 742 of 2023 on the file of the respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr T.R.Prabhakaran
For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1
Crl.O.P.Nos. 3370 & 4536 of 2024
Crl.O.P.No. 4536 of 2024
Naresh Praveen @ Naresh ... Petitioner/ Accused Vs. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police P-6 Kodungaiyur Poilce Station Chennai. (Cr.No. 742 of 2023). ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending in Crime No. 742 of 2023 on the file of the Inspector of Police, P-6, Kodungaiyur Police Station, Chennai District.
*** For Petitioner : Mr. S.Chrishpinraj For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
COMMON ORDER
A-1 has filed Crl.O.P.No. 4536 of 2024 and A-2 has filed Crl.O.P.No. 3370 of 2024, both in Crime No. 742 of 2023 registered under
Section 8(c) read with 22(c), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.
2
Crl.O.P.Nos. 3370 & 4536 of 2024
This seizure was actually from the first accused. It was stated that the first accused would procure the same from courier service and hand it over to one Ajay of Maathur and Shaafi of Redhills, who had ordered the tablets online and couriered it to addresses in and around Kodungaiyur.
the offences and sought bail.
3
Crl.O.P.Nos. 3370 & 4536 of 2024
wherein it had been stated that the quantity of Nitravet tablets seized is commercial quantity since it is 1200 in number. It had also been stated that all formalities had been completed. It had been stated that the specific overt act as against the accused Nos. 3 and 4 who are both absconding is that they had forwarded the tablets through courier to addresses in and around Kodungaiyur. It is stated that the first accused had collected the tablets and
was going along with the second accused to hand over the tablets to the accused Nos. 3 and 4.
4
Crl.O.P.Nos. 3370 & 4536 of 2024
learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Cr.MP(M).No. 1091 of 2017 [ Kapil Garg Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh] . The learned Single Judge had stated that the weight of the Nitravet tablets was 9.83 mg.
then the quantity seized is non commercial in nature. It is therefore stated that the petitioners are entitled for bail.
5
Crl.O.P.Nos. 3370 & 4536 of 2024
2, the contraband could be less than commercial but taking into consideration the overall picture, the entire operation involves importing of Narcotic substance through courier service and later handing them over to the accused Nos. 3 and 4 by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 herein. When an order is placed through courier service, naturally only less than commercial quantity would be placed to avoid a much larger parcel being couriered and creating suspicion. Each parcel would contain psychotropic substance of less than commercial value but they are a chain in a larger operation and therefore, the possession of quantity seized cannot be viewed in isolation. It is part of a larger network of purchasing psychotropic substances through courier service and distributing it in the open market. The accused Nos. 3 and 4 are still absconding.
6
Crl.O.P.Nos. 3370 & 4536 of 2024
petitioners but give a direction to the respondent to endeavour to secure
accused Nos. 3 and 4 so that they could also face trial.
06.03.2024
vsg
Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No
To
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
7
Crl.O.P.Nos. 3370 & 4536 of 2024
vsg
Pre Delivery Order made in Crl.O.P.Nos. 3370 & 4536 of 2024
06.03.2024
8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail in view of the quantity of Nitravet tablets seized being potentially non-commercial?
Whether the possession of contraband is part of a larger network of distribution making the bail application unsustainable?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajinder Kumar Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶38
CRM.M.No. 9291 of 2017 dated 06.04.2017 [Rajinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab]
Kapil Garg Vs. State of Himachal PradeshReferred¶43
Cr.MP(M).No. 1091 of 2017 [ Kapil Garg Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajaram
Naresh Praveen @ Naresh
The State represented by The Inspector of Police Kodungaiyur Poilce Station Chennai
C.V.Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
