Silambarasan v. The State Rep.By, the Inspector of Police,

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

28.01.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act 1985, in connection with CC.No.332 of 2025 pending on the file of the I Additional EC and NDPS Court at Chennai, seeks bail. Page2 of 5

¶2The allegation against the petitioner is that on 28.01.2025, based on secret information, the respondent police intercepted the petitioner near the Redhills bus stand and found him in possession of 22 kg of ganja contained in two bags. The contraband was seized in the presence of witnesses, samples were drawn, and the petitioner was arrested. Hence, the case was registered.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further contended that the petitioner has been in custody since 28.01.2025. Relying on the search and seizure records, the counsel argued that the identification of the accused is questionable. He further stated that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the trial process, has no previous cases pending against him, and therefore prayed for the grant of bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the investigation was completed and the charge sheet has been filed as C.C. No. 332 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional EC & NDPS Court, Chennai. He further stated that the officer who conducted the search and seizure has already tendered evidence before the Trial Court, and other witnesses have been examined. The case is now posted for the Page3 of 5 examination of the Investigating Officer on 23.02.2026. He argued that since the evidence regarding the seizure and other facts has already been recorded, re-interpreting documents at this stage is improper.

¶5I agree with the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that once evidence is tendered and the officer who conducted the search and seizure has been cross-examined, re-interpreting the seizure documents for the purpose of bail, without referring to the actual evidence on record is not permissible. Considering the commercial quantity involved and the stage of the trial, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶6Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 16-02-2026 JAI Page4 of 5 To

¶1The Inspector of Police, PEW Redhills Police Station, Chennai.

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o2245oofo2026 K.RAJASEKAR,oJ. JAI CRLoOPoNo.o2245oofo2026 16-02-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Silambarasan ..Petitioner(s) Vs The state rep.by, The Inspector of Police, PEW Redhills Police Station, Chennai. Cr.No.11 of 2025.Chennai ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in the above CC.No.332 of 2025, by the filed before the Honble I Additional EC and NDPS Court at Chennai. For Petitioner(s): M/s.K.Selvamani For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gopinath, GA (Crl.Side)