Madras High Court
Sarath Kumar .R vs State Rep.By The Inspector Of Police on 3 July, 2026
Crl.O.P.Nos.12536 & 16745 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.07.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.12536 & 16745 of 2026
Sarath Kumar.R ... Petitioner / A2
in Crl.O.P.No.12536 of 2026
Praveen ... Petitioner / A1
in Crl.O.P.No.16745 of 2026
Vs.
The State, rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
V-7, Nolambur Police Station,
Anna Nagar, Chennai - 37.
(Crime No.84 of 2026) ... Respondent
in both Crl.O.Ps’
COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 483
of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in connection Crime No.84
of 2026 pending on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.Srikanth Kolla
for Mr.P.Veera Narayanan
in Crl.O.P.No.12536 of 2026
For Petitioner : Mr.Srikanth Kolla
in Crl.O.P.No.16745 of 2026
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.12536 & 16745 of 2026
For Respondent : Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
in both Crl.O.Ps’
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner/A2 in Crl.O.P.No.12536 of 2026, who was arrested and
remanded to judicial custody on 03.02.2026 for the alleged offences under
Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B), 22(c), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS
Act, in Crime No.84 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.
2. The petitioner/A1 in Crl.O.P.No.16745 of 2026, who was arrested
and remanded to judicial custody on 02.02.2026 for the alleged offences
under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 22(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime
No.84 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, along with the
other accused, were found in illegal possession of 12.400 kgs of ganja, 190
grams of OG ganja and 52 grams of Methamphetamine. Hence, the case.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are
totally four accused and these petitioners have been arrayed as A1 and A2. It
is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the grounds of
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.12536 & 16745 of 2026
arrest have not been furnished to the petitioners. Apart from that, recovered
contraband is not of commercial quantity. From A1, 12.400 kgs of ganja and
190 grams of OG ganja were recovered; from A2, 30 grams of
Methamphetamine; from A3, 22 grams of Methamphetamine; and from A4,
no recovery was effected. The petitioners have been in incarceration since
03.02.2026 and 02.02.2026 respectively. It is the further contention of the
learned counsel that, though the petitioners were served with the arrest
memo, it does not contain sufficient particulars to enable them to effectively
defend themselves before the Remand Court, as it merely referred to certain
banned contraband without specifying the nature or description of the
contraband. It is also contended that the recovery from each accused is only
of intermediate quantity and, therefore, the rigour under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act would not be attracted.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the
respondent police opposed the grant of bail and submitted that A1 was
initially intercepted and, based on his confession, A2 and A3 were also
intercepted. From A1, 12.400 kgs of ganja and 190 grams of OG ganja were
recovered; from A2, 30 grams of Methamphetamine; from A3, 22 grams of
Methamphetamine; and from A4, no recovery was effected. Though the
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.12536 & 16745 of 2026
recoveries may appear to be separate, the accused had acted in concert with a
common intention to peddle the contraband and, therefore, there existed a
conspiracy among them. Hence, if the quantities are aggregated, they would
constitute commercial quantity. He further submitted that though separate
grounds of arrest were not furnished, there is no prescribed format for
furnishing the grounds of arrest. Even in the arrest memo served upon the
petitioners, sufficient particulars were furnished to enable them to effectively
defend themselves before the Remand Court. Therefore, according to him,
the mandatory requirement relating to furnishing the grounds of arrest has
been complied with.
6. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. Though the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) strongly
opposed the bail application on the ground that, notwithstanding the
individual recoveries being of intermediate quantity, the aggregate quantity of
the contraband would constitute commercial quantity and that there are
materials connecting all the accused. Before to delve the above aspect, this
Court is inclined to first consider the issue relating to the grounds of arrest.
4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.12536 & 16745 of 2026
As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, no separate
grounds of arrest have been furnished to the petitioners. At this juncture, it is
also relevant to refer to the submission made by the learned Government
Advocate (Crl. Side) that there is no prescribed format for furnishing the
grounds of arrest. No doubt, there is no prescribed format. However,
according to the jurisprudence relating to the grounds of arrest, what is
essential is that sufficient particulars should be furnished to the accused to
enable him to effectively defend himself before the Remand Court as well as
before the Bail Court.
8. On perusal of the arrest memo, it is seen that in Column No.4, it
merely refers to “banned contraband” without specifying the nature of the
contraband. In Column No.8, in respect of Praveen, the contraband is referred
to as ganja. However, in the case of Sarath Kumar, the contraband is merely
referred to as “Meths”, without any specific particulars.
9. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the firm view that even
the arrest memo of Sarath Kumar (A2) does not disclose sufficient particulars
constituting the grounds of arrest and that the details furnished therein are
vague. No doubt, the scope of arrest memo is altogether different from the
5/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.12536 & 16745 of 2026
grounds of arrest. However, the fact remains that, since there is no prescribed
format for the grounds of arrest, what is essential is to find out whether
sufficient particulars have been furnished to enable the accused to effectively
defend the bail application. Insofar as Sarath Kumar is concerned, this Court
is of the firm view that the particulars furnished are not sufficient to enable
him to effectively defend himself before the Bail Court. Therefore,
Crl.O.P.No.12536 of 2026 insofar as Sarath Kumar.R (A2) is allowed.
10. Insofar as Praveen is concerned, the arrest memo contains
sufficient particulars regarding the nature and quantity of the contraband.
Though the arrest memo does not bear the nomenclature of “grounds of
arrest”, it contains sufficient details to enable the petitioner to effectively
defend himself before the Bail Court. Hence, Crl.O.P.No.16745 of 2026,
insofar as Praveen (A1) is concerned, is dismissed, as the prosecution has
specifically contended that there exists a nexus among all the accused,
thereby bringing the aggregate quantity of the contraband within the purview
of commercial quantity. Consequently, the rigour under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act would apply and there are no grounds to overcome the said rigour.
6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.12536 & 16745 of 2026
11. Accordingly, the petitioner/A2 in Crl.O.P.No.12536 of 2026 is
ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each,
for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court,
Ambattur, and on further conditions that:
[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and
Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship
[Judicial Form No.46 annexed to ‘The Criminal Rules of
Practice, 2019’]. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a
copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their
identity;
[b] the petitioner/A2 shall report before the
respondent police twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30
p.m., until further orders;
[c] the petitioner/A2 shall not abscond either during
investigation or trial;
[d] the petitioner/A2 shall not tamper with the
evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
[e] On breach of any of the aforementioned
conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to
pass appropriate orders against the petitioner/A2 in
7/10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.12536 & 16745 of 2026
accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283];
[f] If the accused/A2 thereafter absconds, a fresh
FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
12. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed insofar
as the petitioner/A2 in Crl.O.P.No.12536 of 2026 is concerned, and
dismissed insofar as the petitioner/A1 in Crl.O.P.No.16475 of 2026 is
concerned.
03.07.2026
cda
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.
8/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.12536 & 16745 of 2026
To:
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambattur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
V-7, Nolambur Police Station,
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 37.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison Puzhal -2, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.12536 & 16745 of 2026
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
cda
Crl.O.P.Nos.12536 & 16745 of 2026
03.07.2026
10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
