Case Note & Summary
This bail application arose under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before the Madras High Court. The petitioner, Pradeep, was the sole accused in Crime No.145 of 2025 registered by the Thousand Lights Police Station, Chennai, for offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). He was arrested on 08.04.2025 and remanded to judicial custody. The prosecution case was that acting on secret information, the police searched near Athar Building, Vellars Garden 2nd Street, Thousand Lights, where the petitioner attempted to flee but was apprehended. A search of his bags recovered 22.445 kgs of ganja. The petitioner allegedly confessed to selling the contraband for unlawful gain. The matter was pending as C.C.No.594 of 2025 before the I Additional Special Judge under the NDPS Act, Chennai. The petitioner sought bail contending that the grounds of arrest were not furnished, infringing his constitutional right to personal liberty. He argued that the seizure and sampling were not conducted in accordance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, rendering the process illegal. He further pointed out that during the examination of P.W.1, the Search Officer admitted that the seizure mahazar did not bear the petitioner’s signature, thereby denying him the right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. He also submitted that the mere pendency of 31 previous cases could not disentitle him to bail. In support, the petitioner relied on N. Uganchand Kumawat v. Inspector of Police, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 9270, for the proposition that non-compliance with Sections 52 and 57 of the NDPS Act entitles the accused to acquittal; Rajkumar Hariram Gameti v. State of Gujarat, (2024) 11 SCC 421, that a confession by itself is insufficient to implicate an accused; and Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 382, that a bail application cannot be rejected solely based on pending cases. The respondent, represented by a Government Advocate, opposed the bail. The available judgment text does not include the court’s analysis or final decision.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure – Bail – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 52A, 52, 57 – Petitioner alleged non-furnishing of grounds of arrest and non-compliance with Section 52A of NDPS Act in seizure and sampling – Contended that seizure mahazar did not bear his signature, vitiating the search right under Section 50 – Relied on N. Uganchand Kumawat v. Inspector of Police, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 9270, to contend non-compliance with Sections 52 and 57 entitles acquittal – Also relied on Rajkumar Hariram Gameti v. State of Gujarat, (2024) 11 SCC 421, to argue confession alone insufficient, and Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 382, that pendency of previous cases cannot alone deny bail – Court’s decision not mentioned. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a case involving recovery of 22.445 kgs of ganja under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, given allegations of non-compliance with Sections 52A, 52, 57 of NDPS Act, non-furnishing of grounds of arrest, and pendency of 31 previous cases.
Law Points
- Non-furnishing of grounds of arrest infringes constitutional right to personal liberty
- Non-compliance with Section 52A of NDPS Act renders sampling process illegal
- Seizure mahazar unsignable by accused violates right to search in presence of Gazetted Officer
- Pendency of previous cases alone cannot disentitle bail
- Confession alone not sufficient to implicate accused
