Procedural flaws in arrest timings and search under NDPS Act justify bail despite commercial quantity.

ORDER

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

22.07.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 8(c), r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act in Crime No.91 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent.

3(a).The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 22.07.2025 for the alleged possession of 20.282 kilograms of Ganja. According to the prosecution case, on 22.07.2025 when the police intercepted the petitioner, they have found two packets each contains 10.240 kilograms and 10.042 kilograms of Ganja in total 20.282 kilograms of Ganja and thereafter, they remanded the accused to the judicial custody. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the two packets of Ganja, which we allegedly recovered from the petitioner is with the brown colour packet. Had the respondent weighed the contraband after removing the brown colour pocket, the same would have been less than 20 kilograms, and that the same would become an intermediate quantity. As a result of which, the rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act will have no application.

(b).Apart from that, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are serious infirmity in respect of the time of arrest, confession, seizure and search. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that had there been the seizure preceded the FIR, the search memo should not have contained the Crime Number. Therefore, it is the contention that the search is a stage managed one. The learned counsel would further rely upon the recitals in the FIR and would contend that, according to the FIR the accused was arrested on 22.07.2025 at about 13.30 hours. But, in the arrest intimation, the time of arrest stated as “22.07.2025 at 16.45 hours”. In the search memo, the arrest is referred to as 13.30 hours. In the confession statement, the arrest is referred to as 11.55 hours. By referring all the above timing, the learned counsel would submit that there is a serious infirmity in the registration of FIR, search and the arrest of the accused, and thereby, the same vitiates the entire prosecution case. Therefore, would contend that there is a ground to overcome the rigour under Section 37 of NDPS Act. It is also the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

4.Per contra the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the total quantity of contraband is 20.282 kilograms of Ganja and that the petitioner is from Tripura. Therefore, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is a possibility of abscondence. However, in all fairness he would submit that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.1324 of 2025 before the Special Court for EC & NDPS Act, Chennai and that the case is now posted for engaging of counsel.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the application.

5.I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6.Coming to the main submission with regard to the weight of contraband, it is the contention of the petitioner that had the respondent measured the weight of the contraband after removing the packets, the weight might have been below 20 kilograms. Though the said contention appears to be attractive, the same is primarily on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and a hypothetical one.

7.However, in respect of the variation of timing, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the FIR, the tim