The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday granted bail to Krishnan, accused in a narcotics case involving the alleged seizure of 1.1 kg of hashish oil. Justice S. Srimathy, while pronouncing the order, made pointed remarks on the repetitive pattern of “1 kg and 100 grams” recoveries in commercial quantity cases, calling it a “magic quantity” that curiously appeared across similar cases.
Background
According to the prosecution, Krishnan and two others were caught by the Gudalur North Police in Theni district on October 28, 2024. Officers claimed the trio attempted to flee on a two-wheeler but were intercepted, leading to the recovery of hashish oil hidden inside the bike’s petrol tank. All three were arrested, and Krishnan, identified as Accused No. 3, was remanded the following day.
The police charged him under several provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, including sections dealing with commercial quantity possession and conspiracy. Krishnan’s counsel, however, argued that he was falsely implicated based solely on the confession of co-accused persons and that no independent evidence connected him to the contraband.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, Justice Srimathy examined the prosecution’s claim and noted that Krishnan’s name appeared only in the confession statements of the other accused and because the seized motorcycle was registered in his name.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021), the bench reiterated that any confession made to police officers under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in evidence. “The officers under Section 53 are ‘police officers’, and therefore, any confession to them is barred under Section 25 of the Evidence Act,” the court reminded.
The prosecution argued that since the seized quantity fell under the “commercial” category, the strict bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act should apply. However, the judge emphasized that “reasonable grounds” must exist to believe the accused is guilty before denying bail - and in this case, no such grounds were shown.
In an unusually candid remark, Justice Srimathy observed, “Wherever one kilogram is prescribed as commercial quantity, the seizure invariably turns out to be one kilogram and one hundred grams. The quantity of ‘one kilogram and one hundred grams’ seems to be a magic quantity.” The court clarified, however, that this was merely an observation, not a factor in deciding the bail.
Decision
After reviewing the records, the court concluded that Krishnan had no previous criminal history, the charge sheet was filed within the legal timeframe, and the trial was still in its early stages. Given the lack of substantial material beyond the disputed confessions, the court granted him bail.
Krishnan was ordered to execute a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the same amount before the Principal Special Court for NDPS cases in Madurai. He must report to the police daily for two weeks and then weekly thereafter. The court cautioned that any violation of bail conditions could lead to cancellation and even a new FIR under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The petition was accordingly allowed, bringing temporary relief to the accused after nearly a year in custody.
Case: Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu (Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 21943 of 2024)
Date of Order: 25 September 2025