Salma Fathima v. State by

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

01.10.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 8 (c) r/w 22 (b), 22 (c) and 29 (1) of the NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.645 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on the basis of information received by the authorized officer, on 01.10.2025, at about 17.00 hours, after obtaining Page2 of 4 authorization, the policy party intercepted A1 and A2, and after completing mandatory provisions, recovered 10 grams of Methamphetamine from possession of A1 (Manivannan). Thereafter, a statement was recorded from A1, and based on the statement recorded from A1, the house of A3 was searched, where the petitioner also present along with her baby and 65 grams of Methamphetamine (commercial quantity) was recovered. Consequently, A3 and A4 were also arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Hence the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been in custody since 01.10.2025. The learned counsel specifically submitted that no recovery was made from her and that she has an infant daughter. He further submitted that a co-accused was released on bail in Crl.O.P.No.29059 of 2025 on 24.10.2025. Furthermore, he stated that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as A4 and that A3 is a friend of the petitioner. He submitted that based on the confession of A1, the respondent Police conducted a search at the house of A3 who had been engaged by A4 to sell Methamphetamine. A total of 75 grams of Methamphetamine was Page3 of 4 recovered from the house of A3 in the presence of A4. He strongly opposed the bail application on the ground that, since a commercial quantity is involved, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted.

5.As rightly submitted by the learned Government Advocate, the recovered contraband falls within the definition of a commercial quantity. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner has not putforth any grounds to overcome the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 04-06-2026 ep To

1.The Inspector of Police, Redhills Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o1729oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. EP CRLoOPoNo.o1729oofo2026 04-06-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Salma Fathima ..Petitioner(s) Vs State By Inspector of Police, Redhills Police Station, Thiruvallur District. Crime No.645 of 2025 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in connection with FIR in Crime No.645 of 2025 on the file of respondent police station. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Y.Syedparvez For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Government Advocate (Criminal side)