Shri .Mohameed Riyan v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police

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

04.02.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A), Section 22(c), 25, 29(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985. in Crime No.33 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 27 Nos of MDMS tablets weighing 10.74 grams and OG ganjs weighing 22 grams. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a college student. He stated that although the FIR was came registered on

04.02.2026, alleging that the petitioner was arrested at Chennai, the petitioner was actually arrested at Bangalore. He further submitted that there is a video footage in support of the arrest of the petitioner and asserted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal bad antecedents. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner.

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the accused was standing together along with other accused and the total recovery of contraband was 10.74 kgs from all the seven accused. There was evidence so as to demonstrate the nexus between all the accused. He further submitted that the matter is currently under investigation. Hence prayed for dismissal of the application.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and Page3 of 4 perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side); this Court observes that while the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently relied upon the video footage, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) rightly contended that it is premature to evaluate such footage at this stage. Furthermore, the case is currently under active investigation. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the enlargement of bail of the petitioner would jeopardise the prosecution case. Further this being a commercial quantity, this Court could not find any factor to overcome the rigour under section 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 25-06-2026 SHL To:

¶1The Inspector of Police H3, Thondiyarpet Police Station, Chennai.

¶2The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras CRLoOPoNo.o12792oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPANoJ. SHL CRLoOPoNo.o12792oofo2026 25-06-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Mohameed Riyan ..Petitioner Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police H3, Thondiyarpet Police Station, Chennai. In Crime No.33 of 2026 ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.7 on bail in connection with Crime No.33 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner: Mr.S.Subramanian Vaidyanathan For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side)