Aljiyani v. The State Rep by

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

31.01.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No.29 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in possession of 8 packets containing 2.30 kgs of ganja and 2 packets containing

2.530 kgs of ganja, totalling 21.400 kilograms of ganja. Hence, this case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been incarcerated since 31.01.2025 and the contraband recovered from the petitioner is 21.400 kgs of ganja which is a commercial quantity. Though, it is a commercial quantity, taking into consideration, the long incarceration of the petitioner, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner.

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was totally objected by the learned Govt Advocate (Crl.Side) on that ground that the petitioner has seven previous cases, out of which, one case is under NDPS Act and he further submitted that the very nature of the petitioner involving in NDPS case would disclose that he is unfit to overcome the rigour of section 37 of the NDPS Act. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record. Page3 of 4

¶6From the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and particularly from the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the quantity of contraband recovered from the petitioner is a commercial quantity. Notwithstanding the fact, petitioner has been incarcerated since 31.01.2025, from the conduct of the petitioner and his involvement in similar nature of offences, even after he was enlarged on bail in another case, it would clearly demonstrate that the petitioner is misusing the liberty granted by the Court. Considering the fact that the petitioner is having previous cases and upon the fact that the quantity involved is commercial one, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 24-03-2026 SHL To:

¶1The II Additional Special Court for EC and NDPS Act, Chennai

¶2The Inspector of Police, PEW Poonamallee, Avadi City Police.

¶3The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras CRLoOPoNo.o5875oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPANoJ. SHL CRLoOPoNo.o5875oofo2026 24-03-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Aljiyani ..Petitioner Vs The State rep by The Inspector of Police, PEW Poonamallee, Avadi City Police, Cr.No.29/2025 ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 483 of BNS Act to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending trial in CC.No.573 of 2025 on the file of the II Additional Special Court for EC and NDPS Act, Chennai in Cr.No.39/2025. For Petitioner: Mr.N.Ramachandran For Respondent: Mr. Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl Side)