Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.KUMARAPPAN, J
Pradeep – Appellant
Versus
State Rep by The Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.18159 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(C), 37, 50, 52A - Possession of commercial quantity - Bail - Rigour of statutory provisions applies - Burden on petitioner to demonstrate reasonable possibility of acquittal. (Paras 3, 15)
(B) Search and Seizure - Mandatory requirements - Information regarding right to be searched before official need not be in prescribed written format - Absence of signature on notice did not vitiate recovery when awareness of rights was proved - Procedural compliance established. (Paras 12, 14)
(C) Disposal of seized articles - Section 52A - Procedural deviation or delay in sample forwarding - Categorized as irregularity, not illegality - Prosecution not nullified by procedural lapses that do not constitute fundamental violations of law. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
The individual was arrested following the recovery of a significant quantity of prohibited substance during a search. The defense argued that failure to furnish arrest grounds, non-compliance with statutory sampling protocols, and the absence of a signature on the search documentation invalidated the proceedings, justifying the grant of bail.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the alleged procedural defects did not render the prosecution illegal. Legislative requirements regarding the notification of search rights were satisfied through verbal communication, and delays in sampling procedures were identified as remediable irregularities rather than nullifying illegalities. The application failed to meet the threshold for bail in the context of commercial quantity possession.
Issues: Whether minor procedural lapses in seizure and sampling protocols or the failure to provide written notification of arrest grounds entitle an applicant to bail, and the extent to which strict legislative bail conditions apply in the face of alleged technical non-compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: Procedural deviations in handling and documenting recovered substances amount to irregularities that do not invalidate the entire prosecution. Furthermore, the mandatory requirement to inform a suspect of their right to search pertains to the substance of the information rather than a strict adherence to a specific written format, and the statutory threshold for bail in large-quantity cases cannot be overcome absent a strong demonstration of potential acquittal.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.04.2025 for the alleged offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in Crime No.145 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that, acting on a secret information, the respondent police conducted a search on 08.04.2025 near Athar Building, Vellars Garden 2nd Street, Thousand Lights. On noticing the police party, the petitioner allegedly attempted to flee but was apprehended. Upon search, 22.445 kgs of ganja was recovered from the bags found in his possession. During enquiry, the petitioner allegedly confessed that he had been selling the contraband to the public for unlawful gain. Hence, the case.
3. This is a case involving the recovery of 22.445 kgs of ganja from the petitioner, who is the sole accused in the present case. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 08.04.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the grounds of arrest were not furnished to the petitioner, thereby infringing his constitutional right to personal liberty. It is his further contention that the seizure and sampling were not conducted in accordance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, rendering the entire sampling process illegal and entitling the petitioner to an acquittal. Hence, he would contend that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is also his contention that, during the examination of P.W.1, the Search Officer categorically admitted that the seizure mahazar did not bear the signature of the accused. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner was denied his valuable right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, thereby vitiating the entire seizure. It is his further contention that the pendency of 31 previous cases cannot, by itself, disentitle the petitioner from seeking bail.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in N. Uganchand Kumawat Vs. Inspector of Police, NIB-CID, Dindigul , reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 9270, and would contend that non-compliance with Sections 52 and 57 of the NDPS Act would entitle the accused to an acquittal. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajkumar Hariram Gameti Vs. State of Gujarat , reported in (2024) 11 SCC 421, and would contend that a confession, by itself, is not sufficient to implicate an accused. The learned counsel further relied upon the judgment in Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , reported in (2012) 2 SCC 382, to contend that a bail application cannot be dismissed solely on the basis of criminal antecedents. He also placed reliance upon the judgment in Nagraj V. Vs. UT of J & K, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine J&K 1168, and would contend that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Though the learned counsel relied upon the aforesaid proposition, the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception is subject to the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to demonstrate that there exists a reasonable possibility of acquittal, and not to conclusively establish his innocence.
5. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and would contend that the present case involves recovery of commercial quantity of contraband. He would further submit that the petitioner had not raised the defence regarding the grounds of arrest in the earlier bail petitions and that, this being the fifth bail petition, such a plea cannot now be permitted to be raised. It is also his contention that there has been no change in circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier bail petitions. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kashif , reported in 2024 INSC 1045 to support his case. Hence, he prayed to
