Bharathi @ Naikadi v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police

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

02.09.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (C) and 29 (1) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.140 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that petitioner along with other accused was found in illegal possession of 21 kg of Ganja. Hence the case. Page2 of 4

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been in custody since 02.09.2025. He further submitted that there are two accused persons in this case and the petitioner is arrayed as A2. He contended that although a total of 21 kg of Ganja was recovered, the contraband seized directly from the petitioner weighs only 10.50kg, which constitutes an intermediate quantity. However, the respondent Police clubbed this with the recovery from the second accused, thereby projecting it as a commercial quantity. It is also the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner. It is also submitted that charge sheet has already been filed and case has been taken on file as C.C.No.229 of 2025. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police strongly opposed the contention of the petitioner's counsel submitting that both the accused transported the Ganja from Andhrapradesh, were apprehended simultaneously and the recovery was effected at the same time. He further submitted that because they jointly possessed the contraband, the individual possession of 10.50 kg of Ganja cannot be lightly taken, as the total recovery constitutes a commercial quantity. Page3 of 4

5.As rightly submitted by the learned Government Advocate, this petitioner along with other accused travelled from Andhrapradesh from whom the respondent recovered 21 kg of Ganja. This is a huge quantity that falls within the definition of a commercial quantity; therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner has not putforth any grounds to overcome the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 04-06-2026 ep To

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

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o8767oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. EP CRLoOPoNo.o8767oofo2026 04-06-2026 (2/2) Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Bharathi @ Naikadi ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police PEW - Redhills Police Station, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in C.C. No.229 of 2026 on the file of the I Additional Special Court NDPS and EC Act, Chennai. For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Elumalai For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Government Advocate (Criminal side)