Madras High Court Grants Bail to Man Caught with 56 Grams of Magic Mushrooms, Expert’s Casual Opinion Not Binding on Courts.
The Madras High Court granted bail to a man who was found with 56 grams of magic mushrooms. The court noted that it cannot interpret the law based on an informal opinion from an expert, as such opinions are not binding. The accused, arrested under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, sought bail from the High Court. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, on the Single-Judge Bench, stated that when deciding on bail, the court should consider the overall situation and legal points raised, looking at the evidence broadly to determine if there is a reasonable chance the accused could be found not guilty. A detailed examination of the investigation materials is not required at this stage.
Advocate K. Pragadesh Ganapathy represented the accused, while Additional Public Prosecutor S. Ravi represented the state. The prosecution claimed the petitioner was caught with 56 grams of magic mushrooms, leading to his arrest and the seizure of the drugs. The police argued that all legal procedures were followed, and the Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that possessing more than 50 grams is classified as a commercial quantity. The applicant argued that although Psilocybin was found, the amount in the seized Magic Mushroom had not been independently measured. Therefore, it could not be assumed that the petitioner had a commercial quantity.
The Bench referred to a previous court order, stating, “I respectfully disagree with the order made on 21.10.2024 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, as it was based on an informal discussion with an Expert via video conference.” It was noted that the Expert told the Court it was not feasible to weigh the Psilocybin separately from the Magic Mushroom. Based on this expert opinion, the Judge concluded that the total weight of the Magic Mushroom should be treated as the total weight of Psilocybin. “This Court, when considering bail, must focus on the wording of the law and make decisions based on that,” it stated.
According to the Bench, when the Judge asked for an informal opinion in the previous Order, the accused did not have the opportunity to question the Expert. The Court stated that it cannot interpret the language of the law or the intent of the Act based on an informal opinion from the Expert. Such an opinion is not binding on the Court and can only be seen as a relevant fact. Given that the petitioner had been in custody since August 11, 2024, the contraband was already taken from him, the investigation was finished, and the petitioner met the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court granted bail. The petitioner must sign a bond for Rs10,000.
Cause Title: P.Rajkumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep [Case No. CRL OP(MD). No.19589 of 2024]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate K. Pragadesh Ganapathy
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor S.Ravi
