[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Mohammed Noog Musharaf A.R vs The Union Rep. By Union Of India on 13 May, 2026
Crl.O.P.Nos.4632 and 4721 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 27.04.2026
Pronounced on 13.05.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.4632 and 4721 of 2026
Crl.O.P.No.4632 of 2026
Mohammed Noog Musharaf A.R ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Union Rep. By,
Union of India through Intelligence Officer,
Narcotic Control Bureau,
Chennai.
R.R.No.38 of 2024 … Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge on bail in C.C.No.45 of 2025 in
R.R.No.38 of 2024 on the file of the respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Subburaj
For Respondent : Mr.N.P.Kumar
Special Public Prosecutor
for Central Government
Crl.O.P.No.4721 of 2026
Md.Rafishah ... Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India,
Rep. by Jr. Intelligence Officer,
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.4632 and 4721 of 2026
Narcotics Control Bureau,
Chennai Zonal Unit,
Chennai – 77. … Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in C.C.No.45
of 2025, pending trial on the file of the II Additional Special Court For
Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act Court at Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kasirajan
For Respondent : Mr.N.P.Kumar
Special Public Prosecutor
for Central Government
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.4632 of 2026 who was arrested and
remanded to judicial custody on 22.06.2024 for the offences punishable under
Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c), 28 & 29 (1) of NDPS Act as amended and punishable
under Sections 22(c), 28 & 29(1) of NDPS Act in C.C.No.45 of 2025 pending
on the file of the II Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under
NDPS Act, Chennai, in connection with R.R.No.38 of 2024 in NCB-
F.No.48/1/16/2024-NCB/MDS on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.
2. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.4721 of 2026 who was arrested and
remanded to judicial custody on 09.11.2024 for the offences punishable under
Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c), 28 & 29 (1) of NDPS Act in C.C.No.45 of 2025
pending on the file of the II Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.4632 and 4721 of 2026
Cases under NDPS Act, Chennai, seeks bail.
3. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.4632 of 2026 is Mohammed Noog
Musharaf A.R (A3). The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.4721 of 2026, is Md.Rafishah
(A4).
4. The case of the prosecution is that, on 20.06.2024 at about 22.40 hours,
when the respondent police intercepted the vehicle bearing Registration
No.TN03Z8176, A1 to A3 were travelling in the said vehicle. Upon a search, the
respondent police recovered 2.700 kilograms of a crystal substance believed to
be Amphetamine. The above substance was recovered from the vehicle.
Thereafter, A1 to A3 were summoned to the NCB Office. Subsequently, their
voluntary statements were recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act on
21.06.2024 and 22.06.2024. Subsequently, A1 to A3 were arrested on
22.06.2024 at about 09.30 hours and were remanded to judicial custody. From
the confession statements recorded from A1 to A3, the respondent police
effected a discovery of fact of involvement of A4 by handing over the
contraband to A2. Hence A4 was later arrested on 09.11.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.4632 and 4721 of 2026
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners in both cases were not furnished with proper grounds of arrest, and
that they were remanded after a period of 24 hours. It is the further submission
of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no CCTV recordings were made
during the recovery proceeding. Insofar as A4, namely the petitioner in
Crl.O.P.No.4721 of 2026, is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that there
was no recovery from him and that he was arrested only based upon the
confession statements. Both the accused relied upon the judgment of this Court
in Crl.O.P.No.7908 of 2025, wherein the co-accused, namely A2 Abdul Gaffar,
was released on bail on the premise of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest.
Therefore, the petitioners seek parity with the co-accused A2. The learned
counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.4632 of 2026 also relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Shabna Abdulla Vs. Union
of India, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2057, Harikisan Vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117, and Ragul Rahaman Vs.
Narcotic Control Bureau (SLP (Crl.) No.11712 of 2025 dated 18.12.2025)
6. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor stoutly opposed the
said contention, and would contend that the earlier application filed by the
petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.4632 of 2026 had already been dismissed on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.4632 and 4721 of 2026
12.02.2026. Therefore, the question of seeking parity with Abdul Gaffar is
unsustainable, as both the petitions qua filed by Abdul Gaffar, and Mohammed
Noog Musharaf A.R were disposed of on the same day, namely 12.02.2026. It is
also the contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the petitioners
were furnished with grounds of arrest and were also informed of the reasons for
their arrest. It was further specifically submitted that the role played by the
present petitioners is distinct from that of the co-accused Abdul Gaffar. Hence,
he prayed for dismissal of the bail petitions.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side.
8. According to the prosecution, the recovered contraband is 2.700
kilograms of Methamphetamine. Though originally it was believed to be another
substance, it is now the case of the respondent that the recovered contraband is
2.700 kilograms of methamphetamine (Ice). Admittedly, 2.700 kilograms
constitutes a commercial quantity. The main ground urged by both the
petitioners pertains to the non-furnishing of grounds of arrest. In support of their
contention, they relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799, Prabir
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.4632 and 4721 of 2026
Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254, and
Ashish Kakker Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh, reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1318.
9. It is relevant to note that, after the pronouncement of above judgments,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while balancing the practical difficulties faced by
the prosecution, and the liberty of individuals, held that non-compliance
regarding grounds of arrest, entailing an accused to seek bail, would apply only
prospectively, qua from the date of judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500 decided on 06.11.2025. In the
present case, A3 Mohammed Noog Musharaf A.R was arrested on 22.06.2024,
and A4 Rafishah was arrested on 09.11.2024. Admittedly, both the arrests were
prior to the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (cited supra).
10. In the case in hand, arrest memos had been handed over to the
petitioners. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
such arrest memos are not equivalent to grounds of arrest. No doubt, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that arrest memos and grounds of arrest stand
on a different footing. But the point for consideration is, whether the petitioners
can raise such a defence in respect of arrests effected way back in 22.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.4632 and 4721 of 2026
and 09.11.2024. As already stated, in Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (cited supra),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that inadequacy of grounds of
arrest would confer rights to seek bail, but only prospectively, namely from
06.11.2025. Since the present arrests were prior thereto, the grounds urged by
the petitioners are of no avail to them.
11. At this juncture, it is also relevant to refer to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Shabna Abdulla Vs. Union of India,
reported in 2024 INSC 612. The said case arose out of a detention order, and not
in a bail matter. Similarly, the judgment in Harikisan’s case (cited supra) also
pertained to preventive detention case, and not in bail jurisprudence. Therefore,
the said rulings are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present
case. Apart from that, in view of the clarification given by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (cited supra), the principles relating to
grounds of arrest would apply only prospectively. Hence, the above two rulings
are of no assistance to the petitioners.
12.The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment
in Ragul Rahaman Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (SLP (Crl.) No.11712 of
2025 dated 18.12.2025), contending that in the absence of videography during
recovery, they will be entitled for bail. While harmoniously reading the above
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.4632 and 4721 of 2026
order, it is seen that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court had issued a specific
direction to undertake videography. But, no such direction was issued in the
present case. Therefore, the above ruling is not applicable to the present facts of
the case. As rightly contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, these
very grounds had already been urged by the petitioners in the previous bail
applications, wherein this Court held that such contentions cannot be considered
at the stage of bail. Therefore, the contention regarding the absence of CCTV
footage is also not applicable to the present facts.
13. Yet another submission raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that though they were intercepted on 20.06.2024, A3 was arrested
only on 22.06.2024, and therefore the arrest is beyond 24 hours, rendering the
arrest become illegal. Though the said contention was raised, on perusal of the
summons and other materials, this Court could not find any detention of the
petitioners before the date of arrest. It appears that the petitioners were at liberty
until their arrest. Rafishah (A4) was arrested only on 09.11.2024. Similarly, A3
was arrested only on 22.06.2024. Admittedly, within 24 hours from the time of
arrest, they were remanded to judicial custody. Therefore, this Court does not
find any illegality in the remand of these petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.4632 and 4721 of 2026
14. Yet another submission raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is, seeking parity with Abdul Gaffar, who is the petitioner in
Crl.O.P.No.7908 of 2025. This Court has perused the said judgment. Though the
said judgment dealt in detail with the jurisprudence relating to grounds of arrest,
it appears that the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (cited supra), which
mandated prospective application from 06.11.2025, was not brought to the
notice of the learned Single Judge. In view of such a position, the petitioners
cannot seek parity based upon the order passed against the co-accused.
15. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioners cannot
raise the issue relating to grounds of arrest in the present case, and the plea of
parity must also fail in view of above reasoning. Apart from that, though the
petitioners contended that they were detained for more than 24 hours, this Court
could not find any material to substantiate such contention, and the same
appears to be a mere presumption.
16. Admittedly, in the present case, the total recovery is 2.700 kilograms
of contraband, namely, a commercial quantity. Therefore, the rigour under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act would squarely apply to the present case. However,
no materials have been placed before this Court to overcome the rigour of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.4632 and 4721 of 2026
Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that no
grounds are made out to enlarge these petitioners on bail.
17. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed.
13.05.2026
kv
To:
1.The II Additional Special Court For Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act
Court at Chennai.
2.The Union of India through Intelligence Officer,
Narcotic Control Bureau,
Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.4632 and 4721 of 2026
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kv
Pre-Delivery Common Order in
Crl.O.P.Nos.4632 and 4721 of 2026
13.05.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
