Kanna Das vs Inspector Of Police

C.Kumarappan, J

1.The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.06.2025 for the alleged offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.125 of 2025 on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with the other accused, was found to be in illegal possession of 26 kgs of ganja. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 15.06.2025 and that the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from him is only 7 kilograms of ganja. The learned counsel further submitted that there are six accused in the case and that the petitioner is arrayed as A2. It was also submitted that the co-accused, namely A1, A3, and A4, have already been granted bail by this Court by orders passed in Crl.O.P. No. 23239 of 2025 dated 10.09.2025, Crl.O.P. No. 27037 of 2025 dated 14.10.2025, and Crl.O.P. No. 26994 of 2025 dated 22.10.2025, respectively. Hence, he prays for the grant of bail.

The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate. The learned Government Advocate submitted that, though the quantity of contraband recovered from the petitioner is only 7 kgs of ganja, the total quantity of contraband seized in connection with the case is 26 kilograms of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. However, the learned Government Advocate did not seriously dispute the fact that the co-accused, viz., A1, A3 and A4, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. The learned Government Advocate further strongly opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner is a resident of West Bengal. According to the learned Government Advocate, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would become difficult to proceed with the trial.

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

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the co-accused, viz., A1, A3, and A4, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. On a perusal of the factual position, it is seen that A1, viz., Geetha, who is a resident of Andhra Pradesh, was also granted bail by this Court subject to the condition that one of the sureties should be a blood relative. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of parity, as he stands on the similar footing as that of the other co-accused viz., A1, A3, and A4. Though the learned Government Advocate opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner is a resident of West Bengal and that his presence during trial may not be secured, this Court is of the view that such apprehension can be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions.

Considering the fact that the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner is 7 kilograms of ganja, that the co-accused A1, A3, and A4 have already been granted bail, and that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 15.06.2025, 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 a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only), with two sureties, in which one surety must be a blood surety for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the II Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act at Chennai subject to the following conditions:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Suretyship [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 stay at Chennai and report before the II Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act 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.