Narcotic drug offences: Bail can be denied even after one year of incarceration, says Madras HC

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

Representational image. | Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

In a case booked for possession of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, courts can deny bail even after one year of incarceration if there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accused could be guilty of the offence, the Madras High Court has held.

Justice N. Ramesh said the right to speedy trial of an accused must be read alongside and not in displacement of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which imposes restrictions on grant of bail to the accused booked under the Act.

The judge refused to grant bail to Muneer Sheik, who was arrested along with his co-accused Javeed, by the Manavala Nagar police in Tiruvallur district on October 14, 2025, for being in possession of 55 grams of methamphetamine, a stimulant that affects the central nervous system.

On inquiry, the accused had reportedly told the police to have purchased 45 grams from a Nigerian national and the rest of 10 grams from absconding accused Kayum Bhai of Dharavi in Mumbai. The Forensic Sciences Department had confirmed the seized substance was indeed methamphetamine.

Any quantity above 50 grams had been classified as ‘commercial quantity’ under the NDPS Act and hence the petitioner, if convicted for the offence, would have to suffer rigorous imprisonment for not less than 10 years and the sentence could be extended even up to 20 years under Section 22(c), the judge said.

The petitioner’s counsel sought bail on the ground of long duration of incarceration, but Government Advocate (criminal side) M.M.I. Khaleel vehemently opposed the plea and contended the police had already filed a charge sheet against the accused before a special court for NDPS Act cases in Chennai.

After hearing both of them, the judge pointed out that Section 37 of the NDPS Act categorically states every offence punishable under the Act shall be cognisable and no person accused of an offence under it shall be released on bail unless the public prosecutor had been given an opportunity of hearing.

Further, Section 37(1)(b)(ii) mandates that when a public prosecutor opposes a bail application, the Court should not grant bail unless it was satisfied there were reasonable grounds for believing the petitioner was not guilty of such offence and that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

In the present case, the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner does not, at this stage, outweigh the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. “I am not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged,” the judge said and dismissed the bail plea.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.