Jaison vs State

G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.09.2025 for the alleged offence under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 22(c), 25 & 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.564 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with the accused, was found to be in possession of 23 nos of MDMA tablets, weighing 11.60 grams, 7 nos of LSD stamps, weighing 0.12 mg, 7.3 grams of Methamphetamine for sale. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely roped in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner has no bad antecedents and he has been under incarceration since 01.09.2025. He would also submit that there is no recovery from this petitioner. Hence, he prays for the grant of bail.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would oppose the bail application and submit that one mobile phone alone was recovered from the petitioner, wherein the call detail records shows the petitioner had frequent contact with the other accused. He would further submit that this the third bail application filed by the petitioner and the earlier bail applications were dismissed by this Court. He would however submit that the petitioner has no previous case.

It is seen that there are about 7 accused, in which, the petitioner is arrayed as A7. Even according to the prosecution, there was no recovery from the petitioner and he has no previous antecedents. The respondent has recovered a cell phone from this petitioner and the call detail records shows the petitioner had frequent contact with the other accused. Except this allegation, no other allegation is against the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was not found in possession of any contraband and other accused persons, namely A1 to A6 were in possession of commercial quantity of contraband, such as, 23 nos of MDMA tablets, weighing 11.60 grams, 7 nos of LSD stamps, weighing 0.12 mg, 7.3 grams of Methamphetamine, which are banned by the Government.

Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the period of incarceration of the petitioner since 01.09.2025 and the fact that there is no recovery from this petitioner and the petitioner has no bad antecedents, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, with certain conditions:

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two blood sureties each for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram, and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m, until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

It is made clear that the other accused persons cannot avail any remedy on the strength of this order, since this Court consider the bail application only on the ground that the petitioner was not in possession of any contraband and the respondent recovered only a cell phone from the petitioner and further, the petitioner has no previous antecedents.