Dismissed¶6

Shashi Kumar v. the State Rep by Its

Bail – NDPS Act, 1985

Madras HC3 Jan 2025CRL OP/30191/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (P. Dhanabal J., order dated 03.01.2025) refuses bail and dismisses Crl.O.P.No.30191 of 2024 under the NDPS Act, 1985. Crime No.54 of 2024, Inspector of Police, Pallikaranai PEW, Tambaram City; 101 kgs ganja recovered from petitioner (A3) and co-accused travelling in a car; commercial quantity; Section 37 NDPS conditions not complied with; investigation complete, charge sheet filed, trial pending; petitioner's plea of non-compliance of Section 42 NDPS left to be established at trial; bail declined on gravity of offence.

What did the court decide?

Since the quantity of contraband involved is a commercial quantity, the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act have to be complied with for release on bail. ¶6

Shashi Kumar Vs the State Rep by Its — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in Crime No.54 of 2024 (offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) & 25 of NDPS Act, 1985), involving 101 kgs of ganja, a commercial quantity, having regard to the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the completion of investigation, filing of the charge sheet, and the alleged non-compliance of Section 42 NDPS at arrest and seizure. +1 more

¶opening

Court's answer

Since the quantity of contraband involved is a commercial quantity, the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act have to be complied with for release on bail.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

In this case there was no compliance with the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶6

Key takeaways

Since the case is posted for trial, it is for the petitioner to participate in the trial and to establish the non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.ratio¶6
Considering the gravity of the offence and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court declined to grant bail to the petitioner and dismissed the Criminal Original Petition.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — NDPS Act, 1985 — commercial quantity: Petitioner, arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.02.2024, sought bail in Crime No.54 of 2024 registered under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) & 25 of NDPS Act, 1985, the prosecution case being that he, along with other accused, was found in possession of 101 kgs of ganja and transported the contraband in a car. Investigation was completed and the charge sheet filed; the case stood posted for trial. Counsel contended that the procedures under Section 42 of NDPS were not followed at the time of arrest and seizure. Held: the contraband being a commercial quantity, the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act had to be complied with, and in this case there was no such compliance; the alleged non-compliance of Section 42 was a matter for the petitioner to establish at the trial; considering the gravity of the offence and the facts and circumstances, the Court declined bail and dismissed the Criminal Original Petition.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.30191 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.30191 of 2024

¶7

N.Shashi Kumar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Pallikaranai PEW, Tambaram City PEW, Chennai. Crime No.54 of 2024.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.G.Martin Manivannan

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.S.Balaji, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.02.2024, seeking bail in Crime No.54 of 2024, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) & 25 of NDPS Act, 1985.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/5

¶16

1/5

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.30191 of 2024

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused were found in possession of 101 kgs of ganja. Hence, the complaint.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent police has registered a false case against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) & 25 of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.54 of 2024, he has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and he is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in this case, that the petitioner is in custody from 12.02.2024 and the investigation is completed and the charge sheet was also filed. He further submitted that at the time of arrest and the seizure of contraband, the procedures under Section 42 of NDPS have not been followed by the respondent police. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶20

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner along with other accused were found in possession of 101 kgs of ganja. This petitioner has been arrayed as

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.30191 of 2024

¶23

A3. He further submits that this petitioner travelled in a car which loaded with contraband of commercial quantity. He further submits that already the investigation was completed and the case is posted for examination of witnesses, and the petitioner was actively participated in the crime; and if he released on bail, there may be chance for absconding and hence he prayed to dismiss for bail petition.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and also perused the materials available on record.

¶25

6. In this case, the quantity of contraband involved is a commercial quantity. According to the prosecution, the petitioner along with other accused, transported the contraband in a car, and the said contraband was recovered from all the accused. Though investigation is completed, the offence are grave in nature. Since the quantity of contraband is a commercial quantity, the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act have to be complied with, and in this case there is no compliance with the conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act. Since the case is posted for trial, it is for the

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.30191 of 2024

¶28

petitioner to participate in the trial and to establish the non-compliance of

¶29

P.DHANABAL, J.

¶30

drl

¶31

Section 42 of the NDPS Act. At this stage, considering the gravity of offence, and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is declined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

03.01.2025

drl