[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Abdul Shareef vs The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police on 9 April, 2026

    2026:MHC:1426


                                                                                CRL OP No. 7689 of 2026


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                    DATED: 09-04-2026
                                                         CORAM
                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
                                                 CRL OP No. 7689 of 2026

                1. Abdul Shareef
                S/o.Abdul Salam,
                Thandilam Home, Mannilthodika,
                Mambad Post, Nilampur Taluk,
                Mallapuram,
                Kerala - 676 542.
                                                                          Petitioner(s)
                                                            Vs
                1. The State
                Rep. by The Inspector of Police
                Tambaram Police Station,
                Chennai.
                Crime No. 680/2024.
                                                                          Respondent(s)
                PRAYER
                    Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C r/w 483 of
                BNSS, praying to enlarge the petitioner/4th Accused on bail in Crime
                No.680/2024 on the file of the respondent police.


                                   For Petitioner(s):   Mr. S.Kasirajan
                                   For Respondent(s):   Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar,
                                                        Govt.Advocate (Crl. Side)
                                                           *******




                1/10



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              CRL OP No. 7689 of 2026


                                                       ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

23.12.2024 for the alleged offence under Section 8(c), 22(c) and 29(1) of

NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No.680 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police,

seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 23.12.2024 at about 05:00 hours,

based on a specific information regarding illicit transportation of Narcotic

substances, the respondent team went near Maduravoyal Bypass and intercepted

a car bearing Registration No.KA-03-MY-2093 in which the petitioner along

with the other accused were travelling and that after complying all the

mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act, search and seizure was effected,

thereby the accused/ A1, A2, A3 and A4 were found in possession of 61.14

grams, 3.38 grams, 4.13 grams and 3.22 grams of Methamphetamine,

respectively and that the total contraband involved in this case is 71.87 grams of

Methamphetamine, which is commercial quantity.

3(a).The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are

about 4 accused in this case, and this petitioner is the 4 th accused. It is the

submission of the petitioner that he travelled along with one Sanoj Appichira

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Valappil from Bangalore to Chennai and along with him there were two other

persons and they have arrayed as A2 & A3. It is the contention of the petitioner

that, according to the prosecution, there was a recovery of 61.14 grams of

Methamphetamine from A1, 3.38 grams from A2, 4.13 grams of

Methamphetamine from A3, and 3.22 grams of Methamphetamine from the

petitioner/A4. The learned counsel would submit that the recovery is not from

the Car, but from each individuals under a different search memo. It is in this

background, he contended that, the petitioner should be accounted only for the

recovery effected from him, which is only an intermediate quantity.

(b). It is also the further submission of the petitioner that the initial charge

against the petitioner is only for consumption and that the search against the

petitioner is subsequent to the registration of FIR. He would further submit that

there are no proof to show the conspiracy and there are no records to show the

money transaction between the accused and there are no scientific evidence to

link all. He would further submit that an application has also been moved before

the trial Court to preserve the tower location. He would further submit that

though the alteration report was filed against the other accused for sale, as

against him, no alteration report filed. The learned counsel would rely upon

various judgments especially in Crl.OP.Nos.4755 of 2025 etc., batch [Badauru

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Shuhail Vs. State] dated 04.04.2025. Hence, prayed to grant bail to the

petitioner.

4.The said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Government

Advocate (Crl.Side) and would contend that from A1, 61.14 grams of

Methamphetamine was recovered, which is a commercial quantity and that this

petitioner was travelling along with A1 and from whom, there was also a

recovery. Since all of them conspired and smuggled the contraband, the total

recovery comes under commercial quantity, as such the same attracts the rigour

under Section 37 of NDPS Act. He would further submit that through the

confession of A1, this petitioner’s involvement was disclosed. But, fairly

submits that investigation was over and the charge sheet taken on file as

C.C.No.338 of 2025. Hence, prayed to dismiss this petition.

5.I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention of this

Court by referring to search memo, wherein there is a reference that this

petitioner was subjected to search, when he was consuming Methamphetamine.

But, later on during arrest, a further reference as to the possession of contraband

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

for sale was referred to. For ready reference, this Court would like to extract the

vernacular portion. In the search memo, it is referred as “Methamphetamine

vd;Dk; nghijbghUis gad;gLj;Jk; nghJ ck;ik klf;fp gpoj;njd;”/ In the arrest memo, it

is referred as “Methamphetamine vd;Dk ; nghijbghUis tpw;gidf;fhf itj;jpUe;J

gad;gLj;jpa Fw;wj;jpw;fhf”/ Therefore, it is apparent that there is some addition.

Here, the contention of the petitioner is that if at all there was any violation of

law, it should be only for the consumption of contraband and not for any sale.

7.Apart from that, it is not in serious dispute that the recovery from the

petitioner is only 3.22 grams of Methamphetamine, which is an intermediate

quantity and such recovery was between 11.10.A.M to 11.15.A.M on

23.12.2024. He would also submit that before the seizure takes place, he has

been arrested at about 5.15.A.M. Even according to the FIR, the recovery from

A1 was from 6.30.A.M to 6.45.A.M. and recovery from A2 was between

7.20.AM and 8.00.A.M, the recovery from A3 was between 8.45.A.M and

9.30.A.M and recovery from this petitioner is as stated supra. Though there is an

allegation in the confession statement of the petitioner that he possessed the

contraband for the purpose of sale, it is the specific prosecution case that they

have purchased the same from A1.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

8.However, while looking into the A1’s confession, he stated that, he just

handed over the contraband in a small packet to the other accused when they

have started their trip to Chennai. As per the confession of A1, the possession of

the present petitioner is not for any sale, but only on his instruction. Though it is

too premature to go into all the minute details, admittedly, the petitioner has no

previous case and that what was recovered from him is only the intermediate

quantity and the recovery is through separate seizure mahazars.

9.In this connection, it is relevant to refer the judgment of this Court in

Crl.OP.No.4755 of 2025 etc., batch [cited supra], wherein taking into

consideration of individual separate seizures from different accused, this Court

has held that it cannot be construed as a joint possession of commercial

quantity. Though the above case is distinguishable on the fact that the accused

individually possessed only the intermediate quantity, still the ratio in the above

case is, if the seizure is under different mahazars, that has to be counted

individually and not jointly. Here, the recovery from this petitioner is only 3.22

grams of Methamphetamine. Besides, as stated supra, while looking into the

search memo, at the time of search he was searched only for the allegation of

consuming the contraband. But, during the arrest, the concept of sale came into

existence.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

10.Hence, taking into consideration of the totality of circumstances qua

the initial search while the consumption of contraband, latter on modified in the

arrest memo as for consumption and for sale, and upon the further ground that

there were individual separate search and seizure mahazar and that the

recovered quantity from the petitioner is only an intermediate quantity and that

the petitioner has no previous case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the

petitioner on bail subject to certain conditions.

11.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 I

Additional Special Judge, NDPS Court, Chennai, 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 appear before the learned I Additional Special Judge, NDPS Court, Chennai, daily at 10.30 A.M. until further orders and no relaxation petition will be entertained for a period of 60 days;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

[c] the petitioner shall surrender his passport before the learned I Additional Special Judge, NDPS Court, Chennai and if the petitioner does not possess any passport, he shall file an affidavit regarding the same;

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

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

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

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

11.This Criminal Original Petition is ordered accordingly.

09-04-2026 kmi

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Note:-

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

To: