Vigneshwaran v. The State Rep by

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

03.07.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 8 (c), 20 (b) (ii) (c) and 29

(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.108 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 22 kgs 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 03.07.2025. He further submitted that there are two accused in the present case. Although there was a total recovery of 22 kg of Ganja, the individual recovery from the petitioner was only 11kg, which constitutes an intermediate quantity. Therefore, considering the long incarceration of the petitioner since 03.07.2025, he prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police contended that both accused were arrested at the same place and the recovery from them must be considered jointly, as they were mutually aware of the possession of the contraband and had transported the Ganja from the same location. Therefore, simply because they were in possession of 11kg of Ganja each that does not mitigate the gravity of the act; the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of the intermediate quantity by taking into consideration of separate possession. Apart from that, the learned Government Advocate also contented that the petitioner has four previous cases, three of which are under the NDPS Act. It was also submitted that although the charge sheet has been filed, considering the petitioner's past antecedents, there is a strong likelihood of committing similar offences in the future. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner. Page3 of 4

5.Admittedly there was a recovery of 11 kg of Ganja from this petitioner. However, it is strongly contended by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has four previous cases, three of which are under the NDPS Act. Therefore, as rightly argued by the learned Government Advocate, the separate possession of 11kg of Ganja will not militate the offence since they were jointly in possession of 22 kg of Ganja. Consequently, the petitioner has failed to make out any grounds to overcome the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 03-06-2026 ep Page4 of 4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. EP To

1.The Inspector of Police, PEW - Redhills Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. 03-06-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Vigneshwaran ..Petitioner(s) Vs The Inspector of Police, PEW - Redhills Police Station, Tiruvallur District. (Crime No.108 of 2025) ..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 CC.No.1231 of 2025 on the file of the II-Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases Under NDPS Act, Chennai. For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Muthukumarasamy For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Government Advocate (Criminal side)