The Madras High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a man who was charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The accused was booked under several sections of the act after police claims that, based on secret information, they had recovered about 1,500 grams of methamphetamine from certain accused persons. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner’s premises had been used by others to export the contraband, asserting a link between the petitioner and the narcotics seized.
In response, the petitioner argued that there was no material evidence to show that the contraband recovered belonged to him, or that he had been in possession of or had trafficked the narcotics. He emphasized that his implication in the case rested solely on a confessional statement made by another accused. He also noted that other persons in similar circumstances had been granted bail by courts. According to the petitioner, investigation was complete, the final report had already been filed, and a non-bailable warrant had been issued — yet there was no concrete evidence tying him to the seized contraband.
The High Court — with Justice K. Rajasekar presiding — examined the facts. The Court observed that the contraband was not recovered from the petitioner’s person, premises, or any vehicle under his control. Nor was there any material evidence directly implicating him in transportation, sale, or storage of the narcotics attributed to the case. Taking these considerations into account, the Court found satisfaction under the conditions laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail, subject to conditions.
The decision is notable because it diverges from the general hesitancy — especially expressed by the Supreme Court of India — to allow anticipatory bail in NDPS-related cases. The Supreme Court has recently remarked that anticipatory bail in NDPS cases is “very serious” and “unheard of,” especially when commercial quantity of narcotics is involved. Nonetheless, in this instance, the Madras High Court concluded that the statutory prerequisites for bail under Section 37 were satisfied, given the absence of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the seized drugs.
Thus, the Court’s order underscores that even in NDPS-Act offences, bail — including anticipatory bail — may be granted where facts call for a nuanced evaluation: mere involvement of narcotics in a case does not automatically bar such relief if there is insufficient evidence against an individual accused.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.