मद्रास हाई कोर्ट ने कहा: एनडीपीएस में गिरफ्तारी तब रद्द, जब आरोपी को जब्ती की मात्रा व धारा न बताई जाए

- Home

- /

- High Courts

- /

- Madras High Court

- /

- NDPS Act | Arrest, Remand Vitiated...

NDPS Act | Arrest, Remand Vitiated If Accused Not Informed Quantity Of Contraband Seized From Him: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

18 Sept 2026 5:37 PM IST

The Madras High Court recently held that an arrest or seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is vitiated if the accused is not informed about the quantity of contraband seized from him or the provisions under which he is charged. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 453] Justice N Ramesh thus granted bail to an accused, accused of carrying 25kg of Ganja. The court noted that...

This is a premium content

Available exclusively to

Our subscribers

Subscribe Premium INR 1099+GST

Your support helps us to bring you more content at

an affordable subscription scheme !!!

All payment options available

The Madras High Court recently held that an arrest or seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is vitiated if the accused is not informed about the quantity of contraband seized from him or the provisions under which he is charged. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 453]

Justice N Ramesh thus granted bail to an accused, accused of carrying 25kg of Ganja. The court noted that the accused was not informed of the quantity of Ganja seized from him at the time of arrest. The court remarked that when the quantity was not informed, there is a real and demonstrable prejudice, as the accused would not know whether he is answering a charge which carried a punishment of 6 months or 10 years.

“An arrested person who is told only that ganja was found in the car he was travelling in, and is not told how much, does not know whether he is answering a charge carrying up to six months or one carrying not less than ten years. He cannot instruct counsel upon the only question that will be asked at his first remand. That is prejudice of a real and demonstrable kind, and it is not answered by paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit, which says that the omission of the precise quantity does not erase the substantive material against the petitioner. The substantive material is not in question. What is in question is whether the petitioner was told enough to defend himself, and he was not,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a bail plea filed by the accused Dhilipkumar. Dhilipkumar was the accused for offences punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) and 25 of the NDPS Act. The accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on October 19, 2025. The final report was taken on file by the Special Court.

As per the prosecution, on October 19, 2025, the police had received information that Ganja was being carried for sale. The vehicle was intercepted the vehicle and the two accused were found. 25kg of Ganja was seized from each of the accused.

The petitioner argued that the grounds of arrest were not furnished in writing or explained to him as mandated under Section 47 of BNSS and thus the arrest and consequent remand were vitiated. The accused also argued that the arrest memo served on him did not disclose the quantity, the nature of the contraband, or the penal provisions involved.

The petitioner also argued that the other accused was also released on bail on similar grounds and since the petitioner also stood on identical footing, he was entitled to the same relief.

The prosecution, however, objected to the bail and argued that the grounds of arrest were communicated at the time of arrest. It was also argued that a commercial quantity of 25 kg was recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner also argued that parity could not be applied mechanically and depended om roles attributed to each accused. The prosecution also argued that the petitioner had been accused in another case which was pending trial and thus should not be granted bail.

The court noted that a printed notice under Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act was served on the petitioner which stated that he was being arrested for carrying Ganja. The court also noted that the notice did not state the quantity seized, the provision of law under which he was being arrested, or the particulars of the search and seizure that preceded the arrest.

The court highlighted that under the NDPS Act, the quantity of the seizure was not just a detail ut a material fact which decided the punishment.

The court also noted that the similarly placed accused had been granted bail by the court. Though the prosecution had argued that the petitioner was facing trial in another case, the court noted that the case was one under the IPC and Arms Act and was not an antecedent under the NDPS Act.

Thus, considering all materials, the court was inclined to grant bail with conditions.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Kasirajan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.M.M.I.Khaleel, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)

Case Title: Dhilipkumar v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 453

Case No: CRL OP No. 24004 of 2026

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Upasana Sajeev is a Principal Correspondent with LiveLaw, covering Madras High Court

Powered by Nyaya 247 News