Sundar v. The State Represented by

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

05.04.2024 for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), 1985, in Crime No.13 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that based on secret information, the respondent police intercepted the accused and initially recovered 6 kgs of Ganja Page2 of 5 from accused No.1 and 4 kgs of ganja from Accused No.2 and subsequently, based on the confession, conducted search and recovered 259.200 kgs of ganja from the premises. Hence, the case was registered.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially the recovery was only 4 kgs and 6 kgs and thereafter, based on the alleged confession, a false case has been foisted as if there was recovery of 259 kgs of ganja. It is further submitted that no proper grounds of arrest were furnished to the petitioner and there was delay in conducting the procedures. The learned counsel would further submit that the mandatory provisions under Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with and the alleged search and seizure are vitiated. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period and delay in trial should be taken into consideration. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that based on the confession statement, a huge quantity of 259 kgs of ganja was recovered from the premises, which is a commercial quantity. It is further submitted that though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised the issue regarding grounds of arrest, the arrest in this case was prior to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and therefore, the same cannot be a ground to consider Page3 of 5 bail. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would further submit that the delay in trial is not attributable to the prosecution and the case involves serious offence under NDPS Act attracting Section 37.

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶6This Court is of the view that from the submission of the learned counsel on either side, though it is contended that initially the recovery was only 4 kgs and 6 kgs, the materials placed by the prosecution show that based on the confession, a total quantity of 259 kgs of ganja was recovered. Coming to the contention regarding delay, though two years may be considered as a long period, delay alone cannot be a ground to overcome the rigour under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). It is also relevant to note that according to the respondent, the delay in trial is partly due to applications filed by the petitioner for securing CDR records and other materials. Taking into consideration the huge quantity of contraband recovered and the statutory bar under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) Act, this Court does not find any ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Page4 of 5

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 27-04-2026 NSL To

¶1The Inspector of Police, NIB CID, Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai.

¶2The Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act. CRLoOPoNo.o7622oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NSL CRLoOPoNo.o7622oofo2026 27-04-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Sundar ..Petitioner Vs The State represented by Inspector of Police, NIB CID, Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai. Crime No.13 of 2024 ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge this Petitioner/Accused herein on bail in C.C.No.772 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act. For Petitioner: Mr.S.Kasirajan For Respondent: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)