(Prayer: To enlarge the petitioner on Bail in C.C.No.1062/2026 on the file of the I-Additional Special Court under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai.

1. The petitioner/A3, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.02.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, in Crime No.55 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with other accused persons, was found in illegal possession of 21.500 kilograms of Ganja. Based on the confession statement of A1, the present petitioner was arrayed as an accused. According to the prosecution, the entire contraband was recovered only from the possession of A1 and A2.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no contraband was recovered from the petitioner and they have been implicated solely on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused. He further submitted that the total recovery in this case is 21.500 kilograms of Ganja involving nine accused persons. He also brought to the notice of this Court that similarly placed co-accused persons, viz., A4, A5, A7, A8, and A9, against whom no recovery was effected, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.16893 of 2026, 17358 of 2026, 18624 of 2026, and 12111 of 2026. Invoking the principle of parity, he prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) strongly opposed the grant of bail, submitting that all the accused persons are family members who were jointly engaged in the illegal trade of Ganja. He further submitted that though no physical recovery was made from the petitioner, the commercial quantity of 21.500 kilograms of Ganja was procured pursuant to the orders placed by the petitioner for retail sale. Therefore, there are sufficient materials to establish the conscious possession of the petitioner through the recovery effected from A1 and A2.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Admittedly, no contraband was recovered from the petitioner. Even according to the prosecution, the petitioner has been implicated only based on the confession statements of the arrested co-accused. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that they used to procure small quantities of contraband from A1 and A2 for retail sale. Except for the said confession statement, there are no independent materials on record to connect the petitioner with the conscious possession of the 21.500 kilograms of Ganja recovered from A1 and A2.

7. Further, it is a matter of record that similarly placed co-accused persons, from whom no recovery was effected, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No. 16893 of 2026 (A4) and Crl.O.P.No. 17358 of 2026 (A5) dated 09.07.2026; Crl.O.P.No.18624 of 2026 (A7) dated 20.07.2026; and Crl.O.P.No. 12111 of 2026 (A8 & A9) dated 08.06.2026.

8. In the absence of any independent material connecting the petitioner with the contraband recovered from A1 and A2, this Court is of the prima facie view that the petitioner has overcome the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2021 (4) SCC 1].

9. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the absence of any recovery from the petitioner, and applying the principle of parity, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

10. Accordingly, the petitioner 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 I-Additional Special Court under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai and subject to the following conditions:

          [a] the sureties shall affix his 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 his identity;

          [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;

          [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 aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

          [f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.