Goutham v. The State Rep. by Its

ORDER The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

29.12.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(c), 29(1) of Page2 of 5 NDPS Act in Crime No.329 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on the day of occurrence, the respondent police intercepted the car bearing Reg No.TN 49 AY 6426 and seized 54 grams of Methamphetamine from the packet of A1 and the mobile phones of A1 to A3. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the occurrence took place on 29.12.2025. The petitioner is Cr.OP.No.9330 of 2026 has been arrayed as A3 and the Petitioner in Crl.OP.No.12300 of 2026 has been arrayed as A2. He further submitted that even according to the prosecution, even according to the prosecution, A1 purchased contraband from an unknown Nigerian National; and there is no recovery from these petitioners and considering their status as students and their long period of incarceration since

29.12.2025, he prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioners.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and the said contention was totally objected by the learned Government counsel (Criminal Side). He further submitted that the recovery has been effected from these petitioners and these petitioners have also travelled along with A1 and apart from that, investigation Page3 of 5 is still pending and charge sheet is yet to filed. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

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

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side); considering the totality of the circumstances and upon the fact that these petitioners were also travelling along with A1 from whom according to prosecution, 54 grams of Methamphetamine was recovered. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that the rigour under section 37 of NDPS Act would attract. Apart from that, investigation is still pending. Hence, it is not desirable to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶7Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed. 12-06-2026 SHL To:

¶1The Inspector of Police Tiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras Page4 of 5 C.KUMARAPPAN J. SHL CRL OP Nos. 9330 and 12350 of 2026 12-06-2026 Page5 of 5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP Nos. 9330 and 12350 of 2026 Crl.OP.No.9330 of 2026 Goutham Crl.OP.No.12350 of 2026 Santhosh Karthick ..Petitioners Vs State rep. by The Inspector of Police Tiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. Crime No.329 of 2025 ..Respondent Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.329 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner in both Crl OPs: Mr.Sathiyaraj E. For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)