Dismissed¶29

Salma Fathima v. State By

NDPS Act, 1985 – Bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 – Offences under Sections 8 (c) r/w 22 (b), 22 (c) and 29 (1)

Madras HC4 Jun 2026CRL OP/1729/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, C.KUMARAPPAN, J., 04-06-2026 — CRL OP No. 1729 of 2026 — Bail petition under Section 483 BNSS by A4 (Salma Fathima) in Crime No.645 of 2025, Redhills Police Station, Thiruvallur District, for offences under Sections 8 (c) r/w 22 (b), 22 (c) and 29 (1) NDPS Act, 1985; Methamphetamine; 65 grams recovered from A3's house held to be commercial quantity; Section 37 rigour not overcome; parity plea (co-accused bail in Crl.O.P.No.29059 of 2025) and infant-child custody plea not accepted; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The recovered contraband falls within the definition of a commercial quantity. ¶29

Salma Fathima Vs State By — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 1729 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 1729 of 2026

Salma Fathima

..Petitioner(s)

State By Inspector of Police, Redhills Police Station, Thiruvallur District. Crime No.645 of 2025

¶10

..Respondent(s)

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in connection with FIR in Crime No.645 of 2025 on the file of respondent police station.

¶12

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Y.Syedparvez For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

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

¶15

01.10.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 8 (c) r/w 22 (b), 22 (c) and 29 (1) of the NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.645 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that on the basis of information received

¶17

by the authorized officer, on 01.10.2025, at about 17.00 hours, after obtaining

¶18

__________ Page1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

CRL OP No. 1729 of 2026

¶21

authorization, the policy party intercepted A1 and A2, and after completing mandatory provisions, recovered 10 grams of Methamphetamine from possession of A1 (Manivannan). Thereafter, a statement was recorded from A1, and based on the statement recorded from A1, the house of A3 was searched, where the petitioner also present along with her baby and 65 grams of Methamphetamine (commercial quantity) was recovered. Consequently, A3 and A4 were also arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Hence the case.

¶22

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been in custody since 01.10.2025. The learned counsel specifically submitted that no recovery was made from her and that she has an infant daughter. He further submitted that a co-accused was released on bail in Crl.O.P.No.29059 of 2025 on 24.10.2025. Furthermore, he stated that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶23

4 .The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as A4 and that A3 is a friend of the petitioner. He submitted that based on the confession of A1, the respondent Police conducted a search at the house of A3 who had been engaged by A4 to sell Methamphetamine. A total of 75 grams of Methamphetamine was

¶24

Page2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

CRL OP No. 1729 of 2026

¶27

recovered from the house of A3 in the presence of A4. He strongly opposed the bail application on the ground that, since a commercial quantity is involved, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted.

¶28

5.As rightly submitted by the learned Government Advocate, the

¶29

recovered contraband falls within the definition of a commercial quantity. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner has not putforth any grounds to overcome the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

04-06-2026

1.The Inspector of Police, Redhills Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

¶34

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

¶35

__________ Page3 of 4

¶36

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