No Chemical Report on THC: Madras High Court Grants Bail in Hydroponic Weed Airport Seizure

Mohamed Ali sought bail under Section 483 BNSS in O.R. No. 130 of 2026 of the Customs Air Intelligence Unit, Trichy, for offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C), 23(C) and 28 of the NDPS Act (opening paragraph). The prosecution says that on 28.06.2026 officers intercepted him in the Green Channel on arrival from Kuala Lumpur; his two checked-in trolley bags allegedly held 1,00,000 Marlboro cigarette sticks and, beneath specially fabricated false bottoms, eight vacuum-sealed packets of suspected hydroponic weed/cannabis (para 2). He claims false implication (para 3). His case was that the 6.208 kg recovered was below the 20 kg commercial quantity, that he had been in custody since 28.06.2026 and that he had no previous case (para 4).

K. Murali Shankar J. set out the relevant passages of the Court's own order of 02.09.2026 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 18133 of 2026, another airport seizure (para 5). In that extract, the Court noted the Orissa High Court's Anujith ruling (3.990 kg, ganja limit 20 kg, Section 37 not attracted) and two Rajasthan High Court decisions, Karan Mehra and Kuldeep Singh, cited there by the prosecution for refusing bail on THC potency. It held that, with no chemical analysis report, there was no scientific material on the substance's composition or THC percentage; that hydroponic weed's high potency was undisputed, but classification as small, intermediate or commercial quantity turns on the NDPS Act and its notification; that Section 2(iii)(b) defines ganja by whatever name known, so the label hydroponic weed is not decisive; and that, treated as ganja, the 20 kg commercial limit applied, so the Section 37 embargo was not applied at the bail stage (para 5). Turning to this case, the Court considered the facts, particularly the quantity allegedly recovered, the chemical analysis report still awaited, incarceration since 28.06.2026 and no previous cases, and granted bail (para 6).