Narbathram And Others vs State

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.02.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 18(c), 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.73 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners were found in possession of 600 grams of Opium for the purpose of sale, and hence, the present case has been registered.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 07.02.2026 and are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police fairly submitted that 600 grams of Opium, which falls under intermediate quantity, was recovered from the petitioners and that there are no previous cases against them.

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

Considering the fact that the contraband involved is an intermediate quantity, that the petitioners have no previous criminal antecedents, and taking into account the period of incarceration of the petitioners since 07.02.2026, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Special EC & NDPS Court, Chennai, and subject to the following conditions:

[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 petitioners shall report before the respondent police twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m. for a period of eight weeks and thereafter appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a further period of two weeks and as and when required for interrogation;

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

[d] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioners 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 petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.