R.Hariharan v. The State Rep. by Its, Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner/A4, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in Crime No.131 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A4, along with the other accused, was found to be in illegal possession of 25 grams of methamphetamine. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner/A4 submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution case, and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that there was no recovery from the petitioner. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, Page3 of 5 submitted that one previous case has been registered against the petitioner. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

¶6The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no recovery from the petitioner/A4 and that 25 grams of methamphetamine were recovered from the co-accused/A1 to A3. However, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent would strongly oppose the anticipatory bail application, as the petitioner has got one previous case.

¶7Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit there is no recovery from this petitioner, the fact remains that the petitioner has got one previous case, and apart from that, this is a case of a Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances. Therefore, in such a case, if this Court grants anticipatory bail, it would send the wrong signal to the society. For which this Court should not wants to give any space. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. Page4 of 5

¶8Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 09-04-2026 dk To

¶1The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶2The Inspector of Police, F-5 Choolaimedu police station Choolaimedu Chennai - 600 095.

¶3The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. Page5 of 5

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. dk 09-04-2026

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN R.Hariharan S/o Ramesh Babu No 58/G1, Sorana Apartments, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Vadapalani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 026. ...Petitioner/A4 Vs The State Rep. by its, Inspector of Police, F-5 Choolaimedu Police Station, Choolaimedu, Chennai 600 095. Crime No. 131/2026. ...Respondent/ Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS Act, 2023, to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in Crime No. 131 of 2026 on the file of the respondent/complainant i.e. on the file of the Inspector of Police, F-5 Choolaimedu Police Station, Choolaimedu, Chennai 600 095. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohan Raj For Respondent: Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Page2 of 5