Ravi v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

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

06.06.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) of NDPS Act in CC No. 1142/2025 on the file of the I Additional Exclusive Trial of NDPS Act Cases at Chennai in Crime No.91 of 2025 on the file of the Page2 of 4 respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused persons were found to be in possession of 30 kgs of ganja. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are about 4 accused and the petitioner has been arrayed as A1. The specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though there is recovery of 30 kg of ganja, as against this petitioner, the recovery is only 100 grams of contraband which falls within the intermediate quantity. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner.

¶4The said contention was totally objected by the learned Govt Advocate (Crl.Side) and submitted that apart from that this petitioner, another 20 kg of ganja was recovered from A2 and A3 and the total recovery is 30 kg of ganja. There are sufficient materials to connect all the accused for the conspiracy. Therefore, the recovery from one accused will be aggravated with the recovery from other accused. Therefore, the total recovery of 30 kg of contraband would attract rigour under section 37 of the NDPS Act. It is also further submitted that the petitioner has two previous cases similar in nature in the year 2015 and 2024 Page3 of 4 against this petitioner and both the cases are pending trial.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and 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); though the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in Crl.OP.No.18139 of 2023 dated 05.09.2023, this case being the commercial quantity and there are materials to substantiate the nexus between the petitioner and all the accused and also upon the fact that this petitioner has two previous cases and as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), to overcome the rigour under section 37 of NDPS Act, this Court could not find any materials. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 27-07-2026 SHL To:

¶1The Inspector of Police, PEW-Ambattur

¶2The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras CRLoOPoNo.o20053oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPANoJ. SHL CRLoOPoNo.o20053oofo2026 27-07-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Ravi ..Petitioner Vs State rep. By The Inspector of Police, PEW- Ambattur, Cr. No. 91 of 2025 ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending trial in CC No. 1142/2025 on the file of the I Additional Exclusive Trial of NDPS Act Cases at Chennai. For Petitioner: Mr,B. Shankar For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)