Madras High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case After Reassessing Evidence on Successive Application

Sandhya, the third accused in an alleged international ganja-trafficking case, sought regular bail after two earlier applications had been rejected. No contraband had been recovered from her; the prosecution relied on travel arrangements, digital material and alleged links with the carriers. On the completed-investigation record, the Court found material changes, including the absence of a phone-forensic report and the lack of any traced payment connecting her to the consignment. Excluding Section 67 confessional statements, the Court found reasonable grounds to satisfy Section 37 of the NDPS Act and granted bail subject to strict conditions. (Paras 7–13)

Key Proposition: On a successive NDPS bail application, a court may reconsider the Section 37 threshold where the completed-investigation record materially differs from the record considered earlier; Section 67 statements cannot be treated as confessions at trial.

• NDPS Act – Section 37 – Successive bail – Change in circumstances – Whether the completed-investigation record warranted fresh consideration? Held, yes. (Paras 7–8)
• NDPS Act – Section 67 – Confessional statements – Whether such statements could sustain the prosecution case at the bail stage as confessions? Held, no; they could not be used as confessions at trial. (Para 9)
• NDPS Act – Section 37(1)(b)(ii) – Bail – Whether reasonable grounds existed on the remaining material? Held, yes, on the record then available. (Paras 10–12)

Background / Synopsis :

• On 13 November 2025, the Narcotics Control Bureau seized 28.080 kg of ganja from the checked-in baggage of two women who had travelled from Phuket via Kuala Lumpur and arrived at Chennai airport. No contraband was recovered from Sandhya, the third accused.
• The prosecution alleged that Sandhya and Yasar Arafath (since deceased) engaged the two women as carriers, sent them tickets and hotel bookings through WhatsApp, and monitored the consignment. The case was registered for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 23(c), 27A, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
• Sandhya appeared on summons and was arrested on 9 January 2026. Her first bail petition was dismissed on 2 June 2026 while investigation was pending; a second petition was dismissed on 6 July 2026 after the Court considered WhatsApp chats and call-detail records.
• The present third petition sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), on the basis of the completed investigation, the complaint and accompanying documents, the absence of a forensic report, the lack of traced payments, and additional custody.

Issues For Consideration :

• Whether the petitioner demonstrated a material change in circumstances sufficient to entertain a successive bail application.
• Whether the material, excluding inadmissible confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, provided reasonable grounds to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Act.
• Whether the prosecution’s concerns about absconding or influencing witnesses could be addressed through enforceable bail conditions.

Submissions Of Parties :

Petitioner: The earlier order of 2 June 2026 had been passed when investigation was pending. Nothing was recovered from her; the prosecution relied substantially on statements of co-accused, which could not be used as confessions. She had forwarded travel documents at Yasar Arafath’s request, but neither the travel agent’s statement nor her bank records showed that she paid for the tickets or hotel. Her own statement was said to have been obtained under threat and later retracted. The evidence was documentary and already with the prosecution.

Respondent / NCB: The prosecution maintained that the case was supported by WhatsApp chats, photographs, call-detail records, and travel-agency and hotel records. It disputed the petitioner’s account of the retraction, alleged that she had remained out of reach after the seizure, and opposed release on the ground that she might influence witnesses.

Court's Observations & Analysis :

• Successive bail application: A successive application is not barred, but requires a change in facts or law, or circumstances making the earlier finding obsolete. The Court relied on Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, (2005) 2 SCC 42, and State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, (2026) 7 SCC 513 : 2026 INSC 411.
• Changed circumstances: The complaint and supporting documents were now before the Court, unlike the record considered in the earlier order. The phone forensic analysis sought in April 2026 was not included in the complaint and the counter-affidavit did not establish that it had been received. No payment for the tickets or hotel was traced to Sandhya; the travel agent stated that an unidentified man had paid in cash. She had also spent four additional months in custody. These matters warranted fresh consideration.
• Use of statements under Section 67: Applying Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, the Court held that statements recorded under Section 67 could not be used as confessions at trial. The Court therefore assessed the remaining material independently.
• Remaining material: Sandhya had forwarded tickets and hotel bookings, photographs of the two women with luggage had been sent to her phone, her phone number was near the airport on the morning the women departed, and she later stayed at a hotel with Yasar Arafath. However, the photographs themselves were not before the Court, the forensic report was awaited, and the bank transactions were not linked to the carriers, travel agent or consignment. The core allegations concerned Yasar Arafath, who had died.
• Section 37 threshold: The material showed that Sandhya knew the women and Yasar Arafath and assisted with travel arrangements, but whether she knew that the women would bring back ganja rested, on the record then available, on Section 67 statements. The Court found reasonable grounds within Section 37, while expressly avoiding a final finding on guilt.
• Risk assessment: The petitioner had no earlier case attributed to her, had appeared before the Bureau on summons, and had a Chennai address on record. The apprehension of witness influence was general and could be addressed through conditions. The custody period was relevant but was not the basis of the order; speedy-trial considerations were read alongside, not in place of, Section 37.

Decision & Directions :

• The Criminal Original Petition was allowed and Sandhya was ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the Principal Special Court under the EC and NDPS Acts, Chennai.
• Sureties were required to affix photographs and left-thumb impressions in the prescribed surety application; the Court was to obtain identity proof.
• The petitioner was required to report before the trial Court on all working days at 10:30 a.m. until further orders.
• She was prohibited from absconding or tampering with evidence or witnesses.
• On breach of conditions, the trial Court could pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, consistently with P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, (2005) 13 SCC 283.
• If she absconded, a fresh FIR could be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
• Before release, she had to file an affidavit stating her residential address and reachable mobile number, with proof, and could not change either without prior written intimation to the Special Court and the respondent. She could not leave India without prior permission of the Special Court.

Legal Provisions Discussed :

• NDPS Act, 1985 – Section 37(1)(b)(ii): Twin conditions governing bail in cases involving commercial quantity.
• NDPS Act, 1985 – Section 67: Statements recorded by empowered officers; such statements cannot be used as confessions at trial in view of Tofan Singh.
• NDPS Act, 1985 – Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 23(c), 27A, 28 and 29: Provisions invoked in the prosecution.
• BNSS, 2023 – Section 483: Power to grant bail.
• BNS, 2023 – Section 269: Provision referred to by the Court in relation to a fresh FIR if the accused absconds.
• Doctrine / principle: Successive bail applications require a material change in circumstances; the Section 37 satisfaction is assessed on the material available at the bail stage.

Precedents Cited :

• Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, (2005) 2 SCC 42 – Relied on for the rule governing successive bail applications.
• State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, (2026) 7 SCC 513 : 2026 INSC 411 – Relied on for the requirement to record the change in circumstances.
• Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 – Applied for the rule that Section 67 statements cannot be used as confessions at trial under the NDPS Act.
• Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, (2022) 18 SCC 374 – Relied on for the meaning of reasonable grounds under Section 37 and the limited nature of the bail-stage satisfaction.
• P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, (2005) 13 SCC 283 – Referred to in relation to consequences of breach of bail conditions.
• State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta, (2022) 12 SCC 633; Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of India, 2021 INSC 877; Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, DRI, (2018) 8 SCC 271; Karan Talwar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 INSC 1012 – Cited by the petitioner; the Court stated that the decisions supported its view.

Case Details :

• Case / Party Name: Sandhya v. Union of India
• Case Number(s): Criminal Original Petition No. 29165 of 2026; CNR: HCMA012320652026; prosecution reference RR No. 43 of 2025; pending as C.C. No. 712 of 2026
• Coram / Judges: N. Ramesh, J. – Single Judge
• Judgment Authored By: N. Ramesh, J. – Order
• Date of Decision: 12 November 2026
• Nature of Proceedings: Regular bail petition under Section 483 of the BNSS in an NDPS prosecution
• Letters Patent / Appeals: None
• Counsel Appearances: Mr. S. Xavier Felix for the petitioner; Mr. V. Chandrasekaran, Special Public Prosecutor for NCB, for the respondent

Disclaimer: This summary is an editorial aid and does not form part of the judgment. Refer to the original judgment before citing.