Nasu Seikh v. The State by Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

09.10.2025 for the alleged offence punishable under SEctions 9(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act in Crime No.159 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner joined hands with other accused involved in transportation and they were in illegal possession of 23 kgs of Ganja ( Commercail Quantity) and on information, both the accused were intercepted near Ambattur Railway Station and after completing the mandatory provisions, search and seizure was conducted and the petitioner was arrested on 09.10.2025.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 12 grams of ganja only recovered from the petitioner herein and he was not in possession of contraband to the extent of 23 kilograms and seperate mahazars were prepared and the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody from

09.10.2025. However, the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner. Page2 of 6

¶4This court has earlier dismissed the bail petition of the petitioner n Crl.O.P.No.32400 of 2025 on 11.12.2025 for the following reasons: I have also gone through the FIR and other connected materials which reveal that the petitioner was arrested on

09.10.2025 and bot the petitioner came to the place of occurrence with two ganja packets and they were intercepted and upon enquiry, it was reveals that A1 was hailing from West Bengal and A2 was hailing from Thiripura. By using a translator, they completed the mandatory provisions and statements were also recorded. It is also revealed that both were aware of each other's possession and they have travelled together to tranported ganja from West Bengal. I am of the view that both A1 and A2 were found in possession of ganja and they were carrying seperate contraband, hence the same has to be considered as an commercial quantity. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners have failed to establish the twin conditions contemplated under Section 37 of NDPs act, and this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶5The petitioner has raised the very same grounds as stated in the earlier petition, hence this Court is not inclined to re-visit the earlier orders passed by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed 30-01-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Page3 of 6 SMN Page4 of 6 To

¶1The Inspector of Police, PEW Ambattur Unit, Chennai,

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras Page5 of 6 CRLoOPoNo.o2011oofo2026 K.RAJASEKAR,oJ. smn CRLoOPoNo.o2011oofo2026 30-01-2026 Page6oofo6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Nasu Seikh S/o. Mamrej Seikh, Chupi, Barddhaman, West Bengal-713513. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State by Inspector of Police, PEW Ambattur Unit, Chennai, Crime No. 159 of 2025 ..Respondent(s) Prayer: this petition is field under Section 483 of BNSS to grant bail to the petitioner in Crime No.159 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police and pass such other further orders as this Honble Court may be deem fit in the interest of Justice. For Petitioner(s): S.Prabhudoss J.P.Ravivarman M.Lakshmanan Page1 of 6 For Respondent(s): Mr.A. Gopinath, Govt Advocate