NDPS Act | Madras High Court Questions Pattern In Contraband Recoveries Barely Exceeding Commercial Quantity Threshold

“It is seen that the commercial quantity is one kg. In the present case it is 1.100 kg. It is seen that where ever there are one kg is prescribed as commercial quantity, the seizure invariably is one kilogram and 100 grams. The quantity of “one kilogram and 100 grams” same seems to be magic quantity. Of course, this is only an observation, but this fact was not taken as a ground to decide the case,” the judge said.

The Court made the observations while granting bail to a man accused under the Act. The court noted that there was no material other than the confession against the man. Noting that there were no previous cases against him, the court relied on the second limb of Section 37 and concluded that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

“Hence there are reasonable grounds to believe that there are no material other than confession in the present case. Further as the petitioner is not having previous case, therefore, the petitioner is not likely to commit any offence while on bail,” the court said.

The court was hearing a bail petition filed by Krishnan, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1), 27A, and 25 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution's case was that on October 28, 2024, the police had nabbed three persons coming in a two-wheeler and had found 1.100 kgs of Hashish extracts in the petrol tank cover of the bike. The police arrested all 3 and recovered the contraband.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that he was innocent and had not committed any offence. It was submitted that he had been arrested and had been languishing in jail since October 2024. He also relied on the second limb of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and submitted that the petitioner had no previous cases of a similar nature against him.

Opposing the bail plea, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner was in possession of a commercial quantity and hence the provisions of Sections 35 and 54 would come into play.

Though the petitioner had also stated that there was prolonged incarceration, the court noted that there was no delay in filing the chargesheet, as it was filed within the outer time limit of 180 days. The court also noted that the trial was in the initial stage.

The court noted that the petitioner was arrayed as accused 3 in the case and it was alleged that the bike, in which the contraband was seized, belonged to the petitioner. The court also noted that he was arrayed as an accused based on the confession of the 1^st and 2^nd accused, who said that all the accused had jointly pooled money to buy Ganja.

The court noted that the prosecution had not produced anything against the petitioner except the confession statement of the accused, which was inadmissible evidence as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Toofan Singh's case. The court thus concluded that there was no material against the petitioner and was inclined to grant bail upon some conditions.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G. Karuppasamypandiyan

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. A. Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Krishnan v. The State

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 341

Case No: CRL OP(MD)No.21943 of 2024