[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Abdul Barak Biswas vs The Inspector Of Police, on 10 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
Crl.O.P.No.6686 of 2026
Abdul Barak Biswas ... Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State rep. by the Inspector of Police,
PEW Erode Police Station,
Erode District. ... Respondent(s)
[Crime No.60 of 2025]
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023,
to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in C.C.No.280 of 2025 in Crime
No.60 of 2025 on the file of the Additional District Judge / Presiding Officer,
Special Court for Essential Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.T.Balaji
For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on
09.03.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1)
of NDPS Act, 1985, in C.C.No.280 of 2025 in Crime No.60 of 2025 on the file
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the Additional District Judge / Presiding Officer, Special Court for Essential
Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with the other
accused, was found to be in illegal possession of 23 kgs of ganja. Hence, the
case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
was remanded to judicial custody on 09.03.2025 and that the recovery from the
petitioner is only 14 kgs of ganja, whereas the recovery from A2 is 9 kgs and
put together, the respondent made it as a commercial quantity. He would further
submit that it was not a joint recovery and the recovery is an individual
recovery, that too, in a common place, namely Perundurai Bus Stand.
4. He would also invite the attention of this Court in respect of the FIR,
where there is a reference that 14 kgs of ganja from this petitioner was seized at
about 7.00 a.m to 7.15 a.m, whereas the another 9 kgs of ganja was seized from
A2 is between 8.30 a.m to 8.45 a.m. Therefore, having there are two seizure, the
question of adding both so as to make it as a commercial quantity is illegal. The
learned counsel for the petitioner would further rely upon the order of this Court
in Crl.O.P.No.8718 of 2023 dated 21.04.2023 and would submit that so as to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
make possession of both of them as a conscious possession of commercial
quantity, there are no material before this Court.
5. The said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Government
Advocate and would submit that the petitioner is the native of West Bengal and
that his presence in Perundurai Bus Stand, that too, in the early morning clearly
disclose his involvement in such an act of commercial quantity. He would
further submit that this petitioner has purchased commercial quantity of
contraband and while he was distributing a portion of the same to the other
accused, this arrest had taken place. Therefore, he would contend that the
possession must be construed as a commercial quantity and therefore, the rigor
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would attract. However, the learned
Government Advocate would submit that investigation has already been
completed and charge sheet has been filed and the case has been taken on file as
C.C.No.280 of 2025 before the Special Court for EC and NDPS Act,
Coimbatore.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the
order of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.8781 of 2023, would submit that since because
both the accused have been arrested on a same place, the same would not give a
ground to add the quantity of the both the accused.
8. While looking into the FIR, admittedly the recovery of 14 of kgs of
ganja from the petitioner took place on 7.00 a.m and 7.15 and the respondent
police have prepared a separate seizure mahazar in respect of the this petitioner
and in respect of the other petitioner, different seizure mahazar was recorded
and the seizure time is between 8.30 a.m to 8.45 a.m.
9. Though the learned Government Advocate would submit that the
petitioner had purchased the commercial quantity and he was sharing the portion
of the contraband, could not be made out in the confession statement of either of
this petitioner or from the other accused and this Court also in Crl.O.P.No.8718
of 2023 has held that any recovery of contraband through different mahazar and
when there is no nexus so as to make the possession as a common one, the
question of adding the possession of the other accused is not proper.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. In such view of the position, in the present case, the total quantity
recovered from this petitioner and the other accused is 23 kgs, whereas the
recovery of the petitioner being 14 kgs, which come under the intermediate
quantity and that the petitioner is under incarceration since 09.03.2025 and the
charge sheet has also been filed and the same is taken on file as C.C.No.280 of
2025. In such view of the above position, this Court is inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail with certain stringent 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 Additional
District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for Essential Commodities Act
Cases, Coimbatore, 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 petitioner shall stay at Coimbatore and appear
before the trial Court daily at 10.30 a.m regularly, until
further orders and he shall not leave, except with the
permission of the trial Court;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
[c] the petitioner shall deposit his passport before the
trial Court, if he does not posses passport, he shall file an
affidavit before the trial Court to that effect;
[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 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];
[g] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR
may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
10.04.2026
ata
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for Essential
Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore.
2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
3. The Inspector of Police, PEW Erode Police Station, Erode District.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
ata
10.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
