Recently, in a high-tension narcotics prosecution involving nearly 18 kg of methamphetamine, the Madras High Court stepped in to examine whether a man, ranked A9 in a sprawling NDPS conspiracy, could still claim the protection of anticipatory bail despite the grave nature of the charges and a pending non-bailable warrant. With the NDPS Act’s strict bail regime looming large, the hearing turned into a pivotal test of Section 37 of the NDPS and the threshold required to overcome it.
The controversy began when police, acting on secret intelligence, recovered methamphetamine in multiple seizures across Tamil Nadu, first 1.5 kg, then 17.821 kg linked to subsequent accused. What followed was a widening investigation that eventually named the petitioner, allegedly involved in exporting the manufactured contraband. His counsel countered sharply, arguing that no material ever showed possession, transfer, or knowledge of the seized substance. With the probe complete, a final report filed, several co-accused already granted bail, and a non-bailable warrant pending, he approached the Court seeking protection from arrest.
Justice K. Rajasekar’s order drilled directly into evidentiary gaps, noting that the petitioner was linked only through confessional statements and past activities, but not the present contraband. In a decisive remark, the Court observed that “The contraband seized in this case has not been possessed, or transported, or sold by the petitioner… the petitioner herein has no way linked with the present contraband seized.”
Ultimately, once the Court found the requirements of Section 37 NDPS to be met, it granted anticipatory bail on stringent terms, including mandatory daily appearance for three weeks and strict restraints against tampering or evasion.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
