Sudhakar v. State Rep.By,

ORDER The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, in Crime No.253 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that, acting upon secret information, the respondent police conducted an inspection and found the first accused (A1) in possession of 1.200 kg of ganja. A1 allegedly confessed that he, along with the petitioner, purchased the contraband for a sum of Rs.30,000/- with the intent to sell it. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in no way connected to this case and has been falsely implicated. He further submits that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused solely based on the confession statement of A1 and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, while reiterating the prosecution's case, strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. He submitted that the petitioner has two previous cases of a similar nature, indicating that he is a habitual offender. He further submitted that if the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail, there is a high likelihood that he may abscond or continue to commit similar offences, thereby hindering the investigation.

¶5Considering that the case involves an offence under the NDPS Act, which carries serious ramifications and a detrimental impact on society, and Page3 of 4 taking into account the allegation that the petitioner, along with A1, was involved in the purchase of 1.200 kg of ganja for illegal trade, this Court finds the matter to be of a grave nature and that the petitioner has two previous cases of a similar nature pending against him and considering the need to unearth the network behind such illegal procurement and sale of contraband, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation is necessary for an effective investigation. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage

¶6Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 15-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni To

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court at Thiruthuraipoondi and Special Court for Essential Commodities, Thanjavur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Muthupettai Police Station, Tiruvarur District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. CRLoOPoNo.o9301oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. Jeni CRLoOPoNo.o9301oofo2026 15-04-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Sudhakar ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep.by, Inspector of Police, Muthupettai Police Station, Tiruvarur District. Cr.No.253 of 2025. ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.253/2025, pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Ramesh Mahadev For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Criminal Side)