Akash @ Akash Ebinezar v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

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

22.07.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c), 29(1) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in Crime No.179 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 22.07.2025, based on information received by the respondent police, the accused persons were found in possession of ganja. A total quantity of 21.430 kilograms of ganja was recovered, out of which 10.745 kilograms along with cash was recovered from A1 and A2 and

10.685 kilograms was recovered from A3. Hence, the case was registered.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that A2 has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.11786 of 2026 dated

07.05.2026 and therefore the petitioner is also entitled to parity. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that he is entitled to the same relief granted to the co-accused. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that though A2 was enlarged on bail in Crl.O.P.No.11786 of 2026, the petitioner cannot seek parity. It is further submitted that the petitioner has previous cases of similar nature. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. Page3 of 4

¶6From the submission of the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the petitioner seeks bail mainly on the ground of parity with A2. However, on perusal of the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.11786 of 2026 dated

07.05.2026, this Court finds that A2 was enlarged on bail on the facts and circumstances applicable to him. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the present petitioner has previous cases of similar nature. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim parity as a matter of right. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the nature of the allegations, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 08-06-2026 NSL To

¶1The Inspector of Police, K-6, T.P.Chathram Police Station, Chennai - 600 010.

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o12179oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NSL CRLoOPoNo.o12179oofo2026 08-06-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Akash (A) Akash Ebinesar ..Petitioner Vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police, K-6, T.P.Chathram Police Station, Chennai - 600 010. Crime No. 179 of 2025. ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in C.C. No. 63 of 2026 on the file of the learned Court of Special Judge, II Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, Chennai in connection to Crime No.179 of 2025. For Petitioner: Mr.P.Rajkumar For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side)