Madan @ Madan Kumar v. State Rep by Its the Sub Inspector of Police

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

25.04.2024 for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29(1) of NDPS Act in Cr. No.112 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. Page2 of 5 .

¶2The case of the prosecution is that based on secret information with regard to the illegal sale of drugs near GM Pet, Throwpathi Amman temple, when the respondent police conducted search, they found 1920 nos. of 10 mg Nitrazepamablets and hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been remanded to judicial custody on 25.04.2024. The learned counsel would further submit that the co-accused were already released on bail. He would also submit that this case is pending in C.C. No.700 of 2024 and the trial is still pending and the petitioner is under judicial custody for the past more than two years and he is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and hence prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶4At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police has submitted that commercial quantity of contraband is involved in this case and there are 22 previous cases pending against the petitioner and therefore, strongly objected to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶5It is a case of recovery of 1920 of Nitrovet tablets, which is a commercial quantity. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Page3 of 5 the petitioner has been behind the bar since 25.04.2024. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate would submit that though other accused were enlarged on bail, this petitioner cannot claim parity as he has 22 previous cases and out of which, though the petitioner is acquitted in 11 cases, still 11 cases are pending. In such circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, that this petitioner cannot claim parity as he has bad antecedents and that this case is of a commercial quantity, in order to overcome the rigors under Section 37 of NDPS Act, this Court could not find any materials. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is delay in trial, it cannot always be a ground to overcome the rigors under Section 37 of NDPS Act. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶6Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 23-06-2026 MJS Note:

¶1Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

¶2All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. Page4 of 5 To

¶1The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶2The Inspector of Police, N2 Kasimedu Police Station, Chennai. CRLoOPoNo.o12630oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. MJS CRLoOPoNo.o12630oofo2026 23-06-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Madan @ Madan Kumar S/o. Dhilkumar, No.335, GM Pettai, Sengalaaman Koil Street, Kasimedu, Royapuram, Chennai - 600013. ..Petitioner(s) Vs State represented by its: The Sub Inspector of Police N2 Kasimedu Police Station Chennai. (Cr.No.112 of 2024) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the above C.C.No.700 of 2024 on the file of this Hon'ble Court in Cr. No.112 of 2024 on the file of the Respondent. For Petitioner(s): M/S. S. Vinoth Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Government Advocate (Criminal side)