Bommannan v. State by

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

26.12.2025 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)

(ii)(B), 22(c), and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Page2 of 5

(NDPS) Act, 1985, in Crime No. 292 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that, acting on secret information, the respondent police arrived at the scene of occurrence and found the petitioner, along with other accused persons, in illegal possession and transportation of 2.5 kilograms of Ganja and 66.14 grams of Methamphetamine. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and is not connected with the offences alleged in the complaint. It is further submitted that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on

26.12.2025 and has been in incarceration for nearly three months; hence, the counsel prayed for the grant of bail.

¶4The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent, who submitted that the total recovery of contraband from the accused persons includes 66.14 grams of Methamphetamine (commercial quantity) and 2.5 kilograms of Ganja (intermediate quantity). He further submitted that Call Detail Record (CDR) particulars disclose active connivance between the petitioner and the other accused. Page3 of 5

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶6Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the nexus between the petitioner and the other accused, though there was only a recovery of 2.5 kilograms of Ganja from this petitioner, the recovery of a commercial quantity from the co-accused invokes the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act against him. There are no grounds available in the petition to overcome the said rigour as there is no reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of such offense, nor is it certain that he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. In view of the nature and gravity of the offense, the active connivance established by the CDR particulars, and the commercial quantity involved in the case as a whole, this Court is not inclined to grant bail at this stage.

¶7Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 06-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni Page4 of 5 To

1.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Gumidipoondi, Thiruvallur District.

2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

3.The Inspector of Police, Gummidipoondi Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. CRLoOPoNo.o4202oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. Jeni CRLoOPoNo.o4202oofo2026 06-04-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Bommannan ..Petitioner(s) Vs State by The Inspector of Police, Gummidipoondi Police Station, Thiruvallur District. Crime No.292 of 2025 ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.292/2025 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Gummidipoondi Police Station, Thiruvallur District and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Sudharsan For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)