At bail stage in NDPS cases, contested aggregation of recovery and procedural lapses may justify granting bail despite commercial quantity allegation if reasonable grounds exist.

ORDER :

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to enlarge the petitioner/A1 on bail in Crime No.30 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 22(c) and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

Case of the Prosecution :

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.01.2026 at about 22.00 hours, the respondent police received reliable secret information that two persons would arrive from Chennai to Gummidipoondi by train carrying methamphetamine for sale. The information was reduced into writing at 22.30 hours and communicated to the Inspector of Police, F1 Gummidipoondi Police Station, and necessary instructions were obtained at about 22.45 hours.

3. Thereafter, the Special Sub-Inspector, along with his police party, proceeded to Gummidipoondi Railway Station with necessary materials. At about 23.35 hours, two persons coming out of the railway station were identified by the informant. On enquiry, they disclosed their identities as Manikandan and Mohammad Neman.

4. After obtaining their consent for search and in the presence of police witnesses, the accused were searched at about 23.45 hours. During the search, 30 grams of methamphetamine was allegedly recovered from the pant pocket of the petitioner/A1 and another 30 grams of methamphetamine was allegedly recovered from the pant pocket of A2. The contraband was seized and marked as P1 and P2 respectively under seizure mahazar. Both the accused were arrested at about 23.55 hours on 31.01.2026.

5. It is further alleged that pursuant to the voluntary confessions of A1 and A2, one iPhone 13 Pro mobile phone from the petitioner/A1 and one iPhone 16 mobile phone from A2 were seized. The prosecution further claims that the accused disclosed that they had procured the contraband from Hari Krishna/A3 and one unknown person/A4, stated to be a foreign national belonging to an African country, for the purpose of sale and personal gain.

6. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the total quantity involved is 60 grams of methamphetamine, which is commercial quantity in terms of the NDPS Schedule, and that the Forensic Science Laboratory report is yet to be received. It is also submitted that A3 and A4 are absconding and that the investigation is still pending.

S ubmissions on behalf of the Petitioner :

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not arrested on 31.01.2026 as projected by the prosecution. According to him, the respondent police, claiming to be a special team, unlawfully entered the petitioner’s residence at Ayanambakkam on 29.01.2026 at about 17.00 hours and forcibly took him into custody. It is further submitted that the petitioner was kept in illegal custody and his arrest was formally shown only on 31.01.2026.

8. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner’s father lodged a complaint before H2 Puzhal Police Station and also before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, on 31.01.2026 stating that his son was missing. Subsequently, the petitioner’s father received telephonic information from the respondent police stating that his son had been arrested in Tiruvallur. According to the learned counsel, this sequence of events probabilises the petitioner’s contention that he had been taken into custody pr