B.Mathivanan v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
1. B.Mathivanan S/o.Babu, No.12/4, Kasthuri 2nd Street, New Lakshmipuram, Chennai600 099 Petitioner(s) Vs
1. State rep by the Inspector of Police M4, Redhills Police Station, Chennai600 052 Cr.No.645 of 2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.645 of 2025 on the file of Inspector of Police, M4 Redhills Police Station, Chennai For Petitioner(s):
M/s.D.Devi For Respondent(s):
Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.10.2025, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and
29(1) of NDPS Act 1985 in Crime No.645 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on the basis of information received by the authorized officer, on 01.10.2025, at about 17:00 hours, after obtaining authorization, the police party intercepted A1 and A2, and after completing mandatory provisions, recovered 10 grams of Methaphetamine from possession of A1 (Manivannan). Thereafter, a statement was recorded from A1, and based on the statement recorded from A1, the house of A3 was searched, and 65 grams of Methaphetamine (commercial quantity) was recovered, and A3 and A4 were also arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Now, the petitioner has come forward with the present bail petition. Hence, the case.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ranked as A2, and there was no recovery effected from this petitioner, and it is also an admitted case of the prosecution that A1 purchased 10 grams of Methaphetamine from A3, and the petitioner has no role in procuring, transportation, or sale of the Methaphetamine. He further submitted that even if it is stated that the petitioner is involved in transportation along with
A1, the seized contraband is also only to the extent of 10 grams, which is not a commercial quantity, and there is no material produced before this court to show that both A1 and A2 were having knowledge about the possession of 65 grams by A3 and A4. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reported that the petitioner is alleged to have actively participated in transportation of 10 grams of Methaphetamine, and investigation revealed that this petitioner purchased the contraband from A3 and A4, hence, after seizure of 65 grams of Methaphetamine, which is a commercial quantity, they have also been included in this case, and since it is a case of commercial quantity. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. I have considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the records. On perusal of the statement of A3, it is revealed that she has purchased some contraband from her source, and by using an app called Zangi app, used to sell the contraband, and accordingly, A1 in this case contacted her and by paying money collected 10 grams of Methaphetamine from her. Except this averment made by A3 regarding A1, she has not uttered anything about A2 in
this case. Further, there is no recovery effected from A2 in this case. Further, the statement recorded from A3 also reveals that A2 was not having knowledge or any link with the possession of 65 grams of Methaphetamine with A3. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that accused No.2 could not be considered to be a part of the trafficking of commercial quantity recovered from A3. Hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri, and on further conditions that:- [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the Trial Court daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of thirty days.
[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation
or trial;
[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];
[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
14-11-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes mpa
Note:
1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.
2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri 2.State rep by the Inspector of Police M4, Redhills Police Station, Chennai600 052 Cr.No.645 of 2025 3.The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison-II, Puzhal.
4.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR J.
mpa CRL OP No. 29059 of 14-11-2025