A.Stephen Raj v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

ORDER The petitioner, apprehending arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, in Crime No.102 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with other accused persons, was involved in the illegal sale of banned narcotic drugs. Upon receiving information, the respondent police conducted a search and found the accused in possession of 9.500 kilograms of Ganja, which was subsequently seized. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent, falsely implicated, and has no nexus with the alleged contraband. It is further submitted that the quantity seized is an intermediate quantity and not a commercial quantity. Since the petitioner has been in continuous judicial custody and the material investigation is substantially complete, the counsel prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Counsel (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent. He submitted that the petitioner was caught red-handed with a substantial quantity of 9.500 kgs of Ganja meant for illegal distribution. He further submitted that the investigation is at a crucial stage, custodial interrogation may be required to unearth the narcotic network, and if the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail at this stage, there is a strong prima facie likelihood of the petitioner absconding or tampering with the evidence. Page3 of 4

¶5Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the recovery, and the gravity of the offense involving the selling of banned psychotropic substances, this Court is mindful of the social impact of drug trafficking. Though the seized quantity falls under the intermediate category, the active complicity of the petitioner along with other accused in selling banned drugs poses a significant threat to society. Granting pre-arrest bail at this juncture would severely prejudice the ongoing investigation, hamper custodial interrogation, and affect the tracking of the narcotic supply chain. In view of the severity of the offense and the potential risk of repeating the crime, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail at this stage.

¶6Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 09-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni To

1.The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai

2.The Inspector of Police, J-7, Velachery Police Station, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. CRLoOPoNo.o14518oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. Jeni CRLoOPoNo.o14518oofo2026 09-06-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN A.Stephen Raj ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, Inspector of Police J-7, Velachery Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.102/2026 ..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 his arrest in Crime No.102 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Amirtharaj For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Criminal Side)