Judgment Intelligence
Bail GrantedVishwanathan @ Makunda Vishwanatha Reddy v. State of Tamil Nadu
Criminal Appeal No. 4841 of 2026 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 11600 of 2026)
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 9 October 2026
- Bench
- Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(b), 25, 29(1) and 37
Final Outcome
Appeal allowed: the appellant was directed to be enlarged on bail on terms and conditions to be fixed by the jurisdictional court, with all questions on the merits left open (paras 11-12).
Key holdings
- Almost two years in custody with the trial not yet begun weighed heavily (paras 8, 10).
- The value of co-accused statements and the disclosure statement is for the trial court (paras 9-10).
- His cardiac condition, with CABG advised, was an added ground for bail (paras 4, 12).
- The merits and compliance with NDPS safeguards were left open for trial (para 11).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
On 20.10.2024 Chennai police intercepted a man near Arumbakkam Naduvankarai Bridge and allegedly recovered 11.59 grams of methamphetamine; statements of arrested accused later led them to the appellant, from whom one kilogram was allegedly seized (para 2). Twenty persons were implicated in Crime No. 441 of 2024 at K8 Arumbakkam Police Station (para 2). Arrested on 23.10.2024, the appellant faces trial before the II Additional Special Court for NDPS cases at Chennai under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 29(1), 25 and 20(b)(ii)(A) (para 3). He suffered a cardiac event in custody and was advised CABG (para 4). On 26.02.2026 the Madras High Court dismissed his third bail application, citing the commercial quantity and Section 37 (para 5).
Court's Findings
The Court found that the appellant had been in custody since 23.10.2024, for almost two years, and that although the chargesheet had been filed, the trial was yet to commence (para 8). As he was arrested on the basis of statements made by co-accused, their admissibility and evidentiary value are for the trial court to examine on the evidence (para 9). Given that the chargesheet cites 46 prosecution witnesses, that the trial had not begun, and that the veracity of the disclosure statement behind his arrest and his alleged involvement require examination at trial, his continued incarceration was not warranted (para 10). The Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits: his alleged involvement, the reliability of the prosecution evidence and compliance with the statutory safeguards were left open for the trial court (para 11). The medical report and his past medical history also persuaded the Court to grant bail (para 12). The order does not itself discuss the Section 37 conditions on which the High Court had relied (paras 5, 8-12).
Legal Principle
Long pre-trial custody, a trial yet to begin with many witnesses to be examined, and an arrest resting on co-accused statements whose admissibility is for the trial court can together make continued incarceration unwarranted in an NDPS case involving an alleged commercial quantity, with serious illness an added ground for bail (paras 8-12).
