Prakash vs State

C.Kumarappan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.05.2026 for the alleged offence under Section 8(c) r/w Section 22(b) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.89 of 2026, on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of 60 Nitrazepam tablets and 400 Tapentadol tablets, weighing 208 gms. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner was arrested on 05.05.2026 and has been under incarceration since then. He would further submit that this is a case of intermediate quantity. Hence, he prays for the grant of bail.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would oppose the bail application on the ground that the petitioner has three previous cases. However, he would fairly submit that those cases are not similar in nature and that the recovery of contraband is an intermediate quantity.

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

Taking into consideration of the recovery of intermediate quantity and the petitioner has no previous cases of similar nature and the incarceration of the petitioner since 05.05.2026, 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 each for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, 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 report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m and 5.30 p.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.