Sulaiman Mohamed v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Sulaiman Mohamed ... Petitioner/A1 in Crl.O.P.No.12340 of 2025 Gopi .... Petitioner/A2 in Crl.O.P.No.19945 of 2025 Vs.
The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, S-4 Nandambakkam Police Station, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai.
(Crime No.160 of 2024) ... Respondent in both cases PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.12340 of 2025: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.160 of 2024, pending investigation on the file of the Respondent Police. PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.19945 of 2025: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in C.C.No.170 of 2025 on the file of this Court connected with in Crime No.160 of 2024 on the file of the Respondent Police.
1/5
Crl.O.P.No.12340 of 2025:
For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Ragavendran For Respondent :
Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Crl.O.P.No.19945 of 2025:
For Petitioner : Mr.B.M.Santharam For Respondent :
Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ********* C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police in connection with Crime No.160 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c), and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, seek bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were found in possession of 52 grams of Methamphetamine. Hence, the present case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A1 & A2 submitted that A1 is a college student and that the alleged recovery took place in a public place without any independent public witnesses, thereby amounting to a violation of mandatory provisions. He further submitted that A2 is a physically challenged person and his name has been wrongly included in the present case based solely on the confession of another accused person. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that 2/5
the contraband recovered in this case is a commercial quantity and that the occurrence took place during night hours. He further submitted that, on seeing the police party, the accused attempted to run away from the scene of occurrence, but were secured by the police. He also submitted that A1 and A2 were arrested and, after completing the necessary formalities, further investigation is being carried out. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.
5. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Admittedly, the case involves a commercial quantity, namely 52 grams of Methamphetamine. It is also found that, based on information, the police proceeded to the place of occurrence, where the accused attempted to flee on seeing the police party. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted. Though it is contended that there was no recovery at the spot, the recovery and statements recorded from the witnesses reveal the involvement of the other accused as well.
7. Hence, considering the nature of the offence and quantity involved in this case, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. 19.09.2025 nvi To 3/5
1.The Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai.
2. The 1st Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial Cases under NDPS Act cases.
3. The Inspector of Police, S-4 Nandambakkam Police Station, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
4/5
nvi 19.09.2025 5/5