Introduction:
In a notable development in the enforcement of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Madras High Court, presided by Justice M Nirmal Kumar, granted bail to two prominent actors, Krishna and Srikanth, who were arrested for their alleged involvement in the purchase and consumption of cocaine. The Court’s reasoning hinged primarily on the finding that the actors’ actions fell within the scope of Section 27 of the NDPS Act—pertaining to consumption of narcotic substances—an offence which is bailable under Indian law. The case throws light on the balance the judiciary must maintain between criminal prosecution for drug offences and the rights of the accused to personal liberty and due process.
The actors were apprehended in connection with offences under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 27, and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. Section 8(c) prohibits various activities involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances; Section 22(b) prescribes punishment for possession of psychotropic substances in a quantity that is less than commercial but more than small; Section 27 deals with punishment for consumption of drugs; and Section 29(1) pertains to abetment and criminal conspiracy. According to the prosecution, the arrests followed the June 17th interception of a suspect carrying cocaine. Based on the suspect’s confession, his supplier was arrested, and the trail led to the involvement of the actors, who were then summoned for inquiry and medical examination. While Krishna tested negative for drug use, Srikanth’s urine drug screening test confirmed the presence of cocaine. Both were subsequently arrested on June 23rd and June 26th, respectively.
Arguments;
Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. L. Infant Dinesh and Mr. R. John Sathyan, Senior Counsel for Mr. K. Prem Anand, argued that the arrest and subsequent detention of the actors violated procedural safeguards guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). It was contended that the actors had been detained in the police station for more than 24 hours without being formally arrested, thereby breaching statutory mandates. Further, the defence contended that the arrest memo and grounds for arrest were neither communicated to the petitioners nor to their family members. They argued that the only evidence against the petitioners was the confession of a co-accused, which is inadmissible in law without corroboration. Additionally, there was no recovery of narcotic substance from either of the petitioners, and no previous cases or incriminating material was brought on record to show habitual involvement in drug offences.
On the other hand, the State, represented by Government Advocate Mr. R. Vinothraja, defended the arrest and investigation process, stating that the special police team was formed to tackle the growing drug menace, particularly among high-profile individuals in society. The State emphasized that the investigation had been conducted with due diligence and under legal protocols. While acknowledging the absence of past criminal records for the petitioners, the State sought to underscore the seriousness of drug consumption and the need to set a precedent for deterrence. The prosecution admitted that Krishna’s drug test was negative but relied heavily on Srikanth’s positive test and the statements recorded during the investigation.
Judgement:
Justice M Nirmal Kumar, after hearing both sides and perusing the materials placed on record, noted that the actors had allegedly purchased cocaine solely for their own consumption. Given this, the Court observed that Section 27 of the NDPS Act was the applicable provision in the case. As Section 27 is a bailable offence, the Court held that there was no legal ground to deny bail, especially in the absence of material suggesting commercial activity, trafficking, or intent to distribute. The Court further emphasized that the actors were first-time offenders and had cooperated with the investigation thus far.
In light of these findings, the Court granted bail to both actors on execution of a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 each, along with two sureties of like amount. In addition to the financial bond, the petitioners were directed to report to the concerned police station daily at 10:30 AM for a period of two weeks and thereafter as required. The Court also required them to submit an undertaking to comply with all directions during the investigation, particularly in relation to witness identification and potential police custody if needed within the statutorily permissible 15-day period.
The Court’s decision subtly but firmly reaffirms the legal position that personal drug consumption, while punishable, must be dealt with under proportionate legal provisions, and not escalated under more serious clauses unless substantiated by evidence. It reflects the judiciary’s attempt to differentiate between casual or experimental users and organized drug networks. The judgment also emphasizes strict adherence to procedural safeguards, underscoring that failure to comply with arrest norms could undermine the legitimacy of police actions, irrespective of the severity of the allegation.
The ruling is likely to serve as a precedent for other similar cases involving personal drug use, especially where the prosecution lacks strong corroborative evidence or when procedural lapses by law enforcement are evident. While the public perception around celebrity involvement in drug-related crimes is often charged with moral judgment, the Court has stayed within the bounds of statutory interpretation and constitutional protection. The order reiterates that every accused, regardless of social status, is entitled to a fair and lawful process, and bail should not be denied merely because of public sentiment or media attention.