Dismissed¶28

Purusothamman v. The State Rep by The Inspector of Police

Madras HC29 Jul 2026CRL OP/20467/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC dismisses bail petition (S.483 BNSS 2023) of A4 Purusothamman, in custody since 08.03.2025 in Crime No.74/2025 (J-3 Guindy PS) under Ss.8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) & 29(1) NDPS Act for joint possession of 21.500 kg ganja (commercial quantity); charge sheet filed, trial at copies stage (C.C.No.860/2025); holding: delay in trial is not a ground to overcome S.37 NDPS Act rigour; bail denied; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Mere delay in trial cannot be considered as a ground to overcome the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. ¶27

Purusothamman Vs The State Rep by The Inspector of Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 20467 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 29-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 20467 of 2026

Purusothamman

..Petitioner

The State Rep by The Inspector of Police J-3, Guindy Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.74 of 2025.

¶10

..Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge this petitioner on bail concerned in C.C.No.860 of 2025 pending on the file of this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner: Mr.N.Arun Kumar For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.03.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) & 29(1) of

¶15

NDPS Ac in Crime No.74 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶16

Page1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

CRL OP No. 20467 of 2026

¶19

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

¶20

accused were found to be in possession of 21.500 kg of ganja. Hence, the case.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been incarcerated since 08.03.2025 that there are about 4 accused and the petitioner has been arrayed as A4. The total recovery is 21.5 kg of ganja. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner has been incarcerated since 08.03.2025, further custody of the petitioner is not required. Hence, prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶22

The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government counsel (Crl.Side) and submitted that this case being a commercial quantity and the recovery is from all the accused jointly. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has contented that the there is a delay in trial now that the case has been posted for furnishing of copies. Therefore, the mere delay will not be a ground to overcome the rigour under section 37 of NDPS Act. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner.

¶23

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶24

Page2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

CRL OP No. 20467 of 2026

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side); admittedly, this is a case of commercial quantity and according to prosecution, this is a joint recovery and now the case has been posted for furnishing of copies. The mere delay in trial cannot be considered as a ground to overcome the rigour under Section 37 of NDPS Act. Hence, this Court could not find any material to overcome the rigour under section 37 of NDPS Act and is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶28