Dismissed

Fathima Begam v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Nov 2025CRL OP/19917/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a criminal original petition seeking bail under the NDPS Act. The petitioner, an accused in possession of commercial quantities of contraband (700g Methamphetamine and 6.6kg ganja), failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court noted she belongs to another state and posed a risk of absconding.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

Crl.OP.No.19917 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.19917 of 2025

¶7

Fathima Begam ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs. The State rep by The Inspector of Police, F-2, Egmore Police Station, Chennai District. ... Respondent (Cr.No.577 of 2024)

¶9

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in CC.No.230 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Special Judge II Additional Special Court for Exclusive trial under NDPS Act, Chennai.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath

¶11

1/5

¶12

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

¶13

Crl.OP.No.19917 of 2025

¶14

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

¶17

16.12.2024 for the alleged offence under Section 8(C), r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 22(c), 25, 29(1) of NDPS Act 1985 in CC.No.230 of 2025 pending on the file of the learned Special Judge II Additional Special Court for Exclusive trial under NDPS Act, Chennai in connection with Crime No.992 of 2025 on

¶18

the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with other

¶20

accused persons, was found in possession of 700 grams of

¶21

Methamphetamine (commercial quantity) and 6.600 kgs of ganja, and the

¶22

same was seized by the respondent police. Hence, the case.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

¶24

is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

Crl.OP.No.19917 of 2025 that only 6.600 kgs of ganja was seized from the petitioner, which is an

¶28

intermediate quantity, and that the petitioner has been in custody from 16.12.2024. He also submitted that she is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶29

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for

¶30

the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner herein is ranked as A4 and she belongs to the

¶31

State of Assam. He submitted that she, along with A2, transported the contraband from Assam and attempted to sell it to the general public and students in Tamil Nadu for personal gain. He further submitted that the petitioner/A4 and A3 were found in joint possession of 700 grams of

¶32

Methamphetamine and 6.600 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity.

¶33

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) further submitted

¶34

3/5

¶35

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

¶36

Crl.OP.No.19917 of 2025

¶37

that, after completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed before

¶38

the learned Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Chennai, and the same has been taken on file in C.C.No.230 of 2025 on 20.03.2025. He further submitted that A2 is still absconding. He also submitted that the petitioner belongs to the State of Assam and that, if she is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of absconding, making it difficult to secure her

¶39

presence. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶40

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶41

A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that there are four accused involved in this case. Apart from 6.600 kgs of ganja, 700 grams of Methamphetamine has been recovered, which is a commercial quantity.

¶42

Since the contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity, Section

¶43

4/5

¶44

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

¶45

Crl.OP.No.19917 of 2025

¶46

37 of the NDPS Act is attracted, and the petitioner has to satisfy the twin

¶47

conditions imposed under the said Section. The petitioner belongs to the

¶48

State of Assam and, if she is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of

¶49

absconding, making it difficult to secure her presence, which would cause

¶50

hardship in proceeding with the trial.

¶51

Considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to grant bail

¶52

to the petitioner.

¶53

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

¶54

12.11.2025

¶55

¶56

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶57

5/5

¶58

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

¶59

Crl.OP.No.19917 of 2025

¶60

¶61

¶62

The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore.

¶63

The Inspector of Police, F-2, Egmore Police Station, Chennai District.

¶64

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶65

Crl.O.P.No.19917 of 2025

¶66

6/5

¶67

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

¶68

Crl.OP.No.19917 of 2025

¶69

12.11.2025

¶70

7/5

¶71

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

Fathima Begam v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Fathima Begam v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dalpat Singh Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police(L and O)

Sandhosh Murugesan Vs Saparnaa Rajendran

R.Backiam Vs M.Ganesh

Bhim Singh Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Kumar Prabagaran Vs State Represented by, The Inspector of Police

J. Andal Vs State Rep by, Inspector of Police