Dismissed¶39

Subinsha v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Jun 2025CRL OP/12478/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Criminal Original Petitions 2025; bail denial under NDPS Act; Section 37 NDPS Act twin conditions not satisfied; 71.87 grams methamphetamine exceeds 50 grams commercial quantity; Sections 8(c)/22(c)/29(1) NDPS Act; charge sheet on file as C.C.No.338 of 2025; repeat bail applications previously dismissed (Crl.O.P.Nos.3764, 3547 and 7673 of 2025); no change of circumstances; Tambaram police Crime No.680 of 2024; trial to be completed within nine months; single bench of M. Nirmal Kumar J.

What did the court decide?

In total 71.87 grams of Methamphetamine was seized during the search of the intercepted car, and the commercial quantity of Methamphetamine is 50 grams. ¶22

Subinsha Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners (arrayed as A2 and A3) should be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.680 of 2024, registered for offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

In total 71.87 grams of Methamphetamine was seized during the search of the intercepted car, and the commercial quantity of Methamphetamine is 50 grams.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

It is seen from the FIR and the counter that all four accused were travelling in the same car and the total quantity seized from all of them is 71.87 grams.

¶30

Key takeaways

Since the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet filed is taken on record in C.C.No.338 of 2025, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be applicable.ratio¶35
The petitioners have not satisfied the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act; hence the Court is not inclined to entertain the petitions.ratio¶37
The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused — Section 37 NDPS twin conditions not satisfied. High Court of Judicature at Madras (M. Nirmal Kumar J., 24-06-2025) dismissed CRL.OP.Nos.12478 and 12485 of 2025 filed by the petitioners (A2 and A3) under Section 483 BNSS seeking bail in Crime No.680 of 2024 of T-1, Tambaram Police Station, Chengalpattu District, registered under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. All four accused were travelling in the same intercepted car; total seizure was 71.87 grams of methamphetamine, above the 50 grams commercial quantity. With the investigation completed and the charge sheet taken on record as C.C.No.338 of 2025, the Court held that the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act apply and that the petitioners had not satisfied its twin conditions. Earlier bail applications (Crl.O.P.Nos.3764 and 3547 of 2025, and subsequently 7673 of 2025) had already been disposed of. Petitions dismissed; trial Court directed to complete the trial within nine months from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24-06-2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

CRL OP Nos.12478 and 12485 of 2025

¶6

1.Subinsha Petitioner in CRL OP No.12478 of 2025

¶7

2.Rahees Petitioner in CRL OP No.12485 of 2025

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, T-1, Tambaram Police Station, Chengalpattu District. Crime No.680/2024. Respondent in CRL.OP Nos.12478 and 12485 of 2025

¶10

Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 483 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioners on bail, in connection with Crime No.680 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police.

¶11

CRL OP Nos.12478 and 12485 of 2025

¶12

For Petitioners: Mr. D.Magesh

¶13

For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

COMMON ORDER

¶16

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by the petitioners/A2 &

¶17

A3, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.12.2024, seeking

¶18

bail in Crime No.680 of 2024, on the file of the respondent, registered for the

¶19

offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c) and 29(1) of NDPS Act.

¶20

2.The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioners were travelling in

¶21

a car which was intercepted and during search it was found that in total 71.87

¶22

grams of Methamphetamine has been seized. The commercial quantity is 50 grams and according to the petitioners, this commercial quantity of Methamphetamine was seized only from A1 and not from the petitioners and the

¶23

petitioners only travelled in the car along with A1. The petitioners was not aware about what A1 was carrying since they are friends and wanted to visit

¶24

Chennai, they had come in the car along with A1 and now they are in prison. Now the investigation has been completed and charge sheet was also filed, which was taken on file in C.C.No.338 of 2025. Hence, further incarceration of

¶25

the petitioners is not required.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police strongly opposed the petitioners' contention that the petitioners are hailing from the State of Kerala and they were travelling in the car jointly and the car was intercepted and during search it was found that in total 71.87 grams of Methamphetamine has been seized which is the commercial quantity. The petitioners are unable to give any reason and explanation for carrying Methamphetamine. As regards A2, he had earlier filed a bail application before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.3764 of 2025 and the same

¶28

was dismissed on 20.03.2025. As regards A3, he had earlier filed a bail application before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.3547 of 2025 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.02.2025. Again the petitioners have filed a bail application in Crl.O.P.No.7673 of 2025 and the same has been dismissed on 20.03.2025. Hence, there is no change of circumstances and this Court had already considered the petitioners' plea on merits and dismissed.

¶29

4.It is seen from the FIR and the counter that all the four accused were

¶30

travelling in the same car and the total quantity seized from all of them is 71.87

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

grams, though separate seizures were made from each of the accused.

¶33

5.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, that the investigation

¶34

has been completed and the charge sheet filed and the same is taken on record in