Kisa Vinoth @ Vinodhkumar v. The State Represented By, the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner/A3, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Page1 of 5 Substances Act, 1985, in Crime No.79 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A3, along with other accused, had purchased Ganja from Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of distribution in Tamil Nadu. The respondent police recovered 2 kilograms of ganja from the possession of the co-accused. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner/A3 submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He also submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case based on the confession of the co-accused. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and the petitioner is ready to cooperate for the investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the petitioner has got five previous cases and the petitioner is also a history sheeter. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Page2 of 5

¶5Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

¶6The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), for the respondent, strongly opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the petitioner has got five previous cases and that they are also initiating an action to open a history sheet, and this is a case of recovery of 2 kgs of Ganja. Though 2 kgs of Ganja is an intermediate quantity, granting an anticipatory bail in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances case would set a wrong precedent, and apart from that, it will have an adverse effect in the society and the petitioner will also be emboldened to commit a similar offence in the future. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 26-03-2026 dk Page3 of 5 Copy to

¶1The XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

¶2The Inspector of Police, H - 6, RK Nagar Police Station, Chennai District.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Page4 of 5 CRLoOPoNo.7667oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. dk CRLoOPoNo.o7667oofo2026 26-03-2026 Page5oofo5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Mr.Kisa Vinoth @ Vinodhkumar S/o.Seenivasalu, No. 20/63, 2nd Cross Street, Anandhanayagi Nagar, Korukkupet, Chennai - 600 021. ...Petitioner/A3 Vs The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, H - 6, RK Nagar Police Station, Chennai District. (Crime No.79 of 2026) ...Respondent/ Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner/accused on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.79/2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Krishnakumar For Respondent: Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.side)