Madras High Court Grants NDPS Bail, Rejects Automatic Aggregation of Separate Ganja Recoveries

Abdul Kalam, the second accused in a ganja prosecution, sought bail after approximately 11 kg was allegedly recovered from his bag and a separate 12 kg recovery was made from a co-accused. The prosecution aggregated the gross weights and invoked the commercial-quantity bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court found that the weights included packaging and that no independent material connected the two accused so as to aggregate their individual recoveries. Treating the petitioner’s individual recovery as an intermediate quantity on the available record, the Court granted bail subject to stringent conditions. (Paras 2–10)

Key Proposition: Separate narcotics recoveries cannot be clubbed to cross the commercial-quantity threshold merely because the accused were apprehended together; the prosecution must establish a positive link, while the net weight excluding packaging must be assessed.

• NDPS Act – Section 37 – Commercial quantity – Gross weight including packing – Whether the petitioner’s individual recovery established commercial quantity? Held, not on the material placed. (Para 8)
• NDPS Act – Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 – Separate recoveries – Conspiracy – Whether simultaneous apprehension alone justified aggregation? Held, no. (Para 7)
• BSA – Section 23 – Confession statements – Whether confession statements could supply the missing link? Held, no, in the circumstances considered. (Para 7)

Background / Synopsis :

• The prosecution alleged that on 9 October 2025 two men, identified as Nasu Seikh (A1) and Abdul Kalam (A2), were intercepted near Ambattur Railway Station on information that they would sell ganja.
• Separate recoveries were recorded: about 12 kg from A1 and about 11 kg from Abdul Kalam. Each recovery was made from a separate shoulder bag and recorded in a separate seizure mahazar. The prosecution aggregated the gross weights as 23 kg and treated the case as involving commercial quantity.
• The samples were reported to contain cannabinoids. The final report was filed on 17 December 2025 in C.C. No. 1915 of 2025; charges had not yet been framed. Abdul Kalam had remained in custody for over a year.
• The first accused had been granted bail by the High Court after consideration of Supreme Court decisions concerning gross weight inclusive of packing and the need for independent material before aggregating separate recoveries. Abdul Kalam sought bail on merits and parity.

Issues For Consideration :

• Whether the petitioner’s individual recovery of about 11 kg, weighed inclusive of the packaging, could be treated as commercial quantity by aggregating it with the separate recovery from the co-accused.
• Whether simultaneous interception and confession statements were sufficient, without independent connecting material, to establish a basis for clubbing the recoveries or attributing conspiracy.
• Whether the statutory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the risks of absconding or reoffending justified continued detention.

Submissions Of Parties :

Petitioner: The seizures were separate and the alleged 11 kg recovery was an intermediate quantity. The gross weight included the gunny bag and packaging. The petitioner and the first accused came from different States, and there were no call-detail records, financial transactions or travel documents connecting them. The first accused had already been granted bail on the same prosecution record. The petitioner had no prior case.

Respondent / State: The State contended that 23 kg of ganja had been jointly seized, amounting to commercial quantity, and that the accused had procured it for gain. It relied on their confession statements and argued that the petitioner, being from Tripura and having no roots in Tamil Nadu, might abscond, commit a similar offence or tamper with evidence.

Court's Observations & Analysis :

• Gross weight and commercial quantity: The seizure records described approximately 12 kg and 11 kg inside white gunny bags wrapped with khaki tape. Neither the inventory nor the counter-affidavit disclosed the net weight excluding packing. Applying Anand Dewar v. State of Chhattisgarh, the possibility that the net contraband fell below the 20 kg commercial-quantity threshold could not be ruled out.
• Aggregation of separate recoveries: Relying on Nadeem Ahamed v. State of West Bengal, the Court observed that the fact that two persons were walking together and were apprehended at the same time did not, by itself, establish knowledge or conspiracy so as to aggregate their individual recoveries. The prosecution identified no call records, financial transactions or travel documents linking the petitioner with the first accused.
• Confession statements: The Court noted that confession statements could not be relied upon as confessions in view of Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), read with the applicable rule in Nadeem Ahamed.
• Section 37: The petitioner’s individual alleged recovery of about 11 kg was an intermediate quantity. On the record, the prosecution had not established with the certainty required that he was answerable for a commercial quantity. Even assuming Section 37 applied, the gross-weight uncertainty and absence of independent evidence for aggregation provided reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty of an offence involving commercial quantity.
• Risk of absconding: The Court accepted that the petitioner’s lack of local roots created a real concern about his appearance at trial. It held that this risk could be addressed through strict, verifiable and enforceable conditions, particularly because the final report had been filed and charges were yet to be framed.

Decision & Directions :

• The Criminal Original Petition was allowed. The petitioner was directed to be released on a bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties—one local surety and one blood relative surety—for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the NDPS Act, Chennai.
• Sureties were required to affix photographs and left-thumb impressions in the prescribed surety application, and the Court was to obtain identity proof.
• Before release, the petitioner had to file an affidavit giving his permanent address at Chupi, Barddhaman, West Bengal, the address where he would reside while on bail, and his mobile number, with proof. He could not change these details without prior written intimation to the Special Court.
• The petitioner was required to report before the respondent police daily at 10:30 a.m. until further orders.
• He was prohibited from absconding or tampering with evidence or witnesses. The trial Court could pass appropriate orders in accordance with law if any condition was breached.
• If the accused absconded, a fresh FIR could be registered under Section 269 of the BNS.

Legal Provisions Discussed :

• NDPS Act, 1985 – Section 37: Twin conditions for bail where the offence involves commercial quantity.
• NDPS Act, 1985 – Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1): Provisions under which the prosecution was instituted.
• BNSS, 2023 – Section 483: High Court’s power to grant bail.
• BSA, 2023 – Section 23: Confessional statements and their inadmissibility in the circumstances discussed by the Court.
• BNS, 2023 – Section 269: Provision referred to for a fresh FIR if the accused absconds.
• Doctrine / principle: Separate recoveries cannot be aggregated merely on the basis of simultaneous apprehension; the prosecution must show a legally sustainable connection. Net contraband weight, excluding packaging, is material to determining quantity.

Precedents Cited :

• Anand Dewar v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 3943 of 2026, decided on 19 August 2026 – Relied on for the significance of excluding the weight of the bag/packing when assessing whether the net contraband crosses the commercial-quantity threshold.
• Nadeem Ahamed v. State of West Bengal, 2025 INSC 993, decided on 5 August 2025 – Relied on for the proposition that simultaneous apprehension of persons carrying narcotics does not, without positive material, establish knowledge or conspiracy permitting aggregation of separate recoveries.
• P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala, (2005) 13 SCC 283 – Referred to in relation to the trial Court’s power to act upon breach of bail conditions.

Case Details :

• Case / Party Name: Abdul Kalam v. State (represented by the Inspector of Police, PEW Ambattur)
• Case Number(s): Criminal Original Petition No. 31311 of 2026; CNR: HCMA012465042026; Crime No. 159 of 2025; C.C. No. 1915 of 2025
• Coram / Judges: N. Ramesh, J. – Single Judge
• Judgment Authored By: N. Ramesh, J. – Order
• Date of Decision: 12 November 2026
• Nature of Proceedings: Bail petition under Section 483 of the BNSS in an NDPS prosecution
• Letters Patent / Appeals: None
• Counsel Appearances: Mr. Srikanth Kolla for the petitioner; Mr. Durai Gunasekaran, Government Advocate, 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.