BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.22794 of 2025 Mukesh Sharma .... Petitioner /Accused No.6 Vs.

State Tamilnadu rep by The Inspector of Police, NIB-CID, Trichy.

(In Crime No.6 of 2024) ... Respondent /Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the learned Trial Court to accept the petitioner's sureties as directed by the docket order dated 20.08.2025 in C.C.No.122 of 2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kasirajan For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

Preface:

Criminal law, particularly when it operates in the field of special statutes such as the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, walks a delicate line between societal interest and individual liberty. While the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is intended to combat organised drug trafficking with an iron hand, procedural fairness cannot be rendered illusory by mechanical application of law divorced from the nature of the relief sought. 2. The present petition does not seek bail, anticipatory bail, or discharge. It merely seeks a direction to the trial Court to act upon its own docket order relating to acceptance of sureties, and therefore calls for a careful delineation between procedural compliance and substantive bail jurisprudence.

Case of the prosecution:

3. A suo motu case came to be registered on 14.02.2024 by the Inspector of Police, NIB CID, Trichy, in Crime No.4 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985, against four named accused persons.

4. The prosecution case is that on the said date, based on prior intelligence, a police party conducted a vehicle check near Irungalur Kaikatti on the Chennai–Trichy National Highway. At about 06.30 hours, a Yamaha R15 motorcycle and a trailer lorry bearing Registration No.TN 04 AY 8617 were intercepted. Upon inspection, 140 kilograms of ganja was allegedly recovered from the trailer truck. Four persons, namely Pranesh (A-1), Suresh (A-2), Shanmugavel (A-3) and Mohankumar (A-4), were arrested and remanded. A final report was filed and taken cognizance in C.C.No.122 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai.

5. During the pendency of trial, a supplementary charge sheet was filed arraying Accused Nos.5 to 7, including the present petitioner as A-6, alleging conspiracy under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

6. Based on the supplementary charge sheet, summons were issued. The docket order dated 20.08.2025 reveals that while A-5 appeared and was directed to execute bond with sureties, A-6 and A-7 were absent and fresh summons were ordered.

7. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he did not receive summons and that similarly placed co-accused (A-5) was permitted to execute bond, pursuant to an order of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)

No.16146 of 2025.

8. Aggrieved by the inaction in accepting his sureties in terms of the docket order, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a limited direction to the trial Court.

Grounds urged:

9. The petitioner contends that, (i)he is not seeking bail but only acceptance of sureties pursuant to summons; (ii) similarly placed co-accused has been extended the same benefit; (iii) Section 88 Cr.P.C., 1973, (pari materia under BNSS) is discretionary and procedural; and (iv) denial of acceptance of sureties without adjudication results in arbitrary discrimination.

Submissions :

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief sought is confined to a procedural direction, and does not trench upon the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance was placed on the docket order and parity with A-5.

11. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that the petiti