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

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

01.10.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 8(C) r/w 22(b), 22(c), 29(1) of NDPS Act in Crime No.645 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks Page2 of 4 bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, the respondent police intercepted Al and A2 and allegedly recovered 10 grams of Methamphetamine from the possession of A1. Based on the alleged disclosure statement of Al, the respondent police proceeded to the residence of A3, where the petitioner / A4 was allegedly present along with her infant child. During the search of the said premises, the police claim to have recovered 65 grams of Methamphetamine from A3, pursuant to which A3 and A4 were arrested. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. 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.

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that based on the confession of this petitioner, the respondent police recovered 75 grams of methamphetamine from A3's residence. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. Page3 of 4

¶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 counsel (Crl.Side); there was recovery of 10 grams of contraband from this petitioner. Only based on the confession statement of this petitioner, they went to A3 residence where there was recovery of 65 grams of methamphetamine. What was recovered from A3's house would also constitute conscious possession as against this petitioner. That being the case, the total recovery of 75 grams, which is a commercial quantity. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been incarcerated since 01.10.2025, beyond that he has not made out any case before this Court to overcome the rigour under section 37 of NDPS Act. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitoiner.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 23-07-2026 SHL Page4 of 4 C.KUMARAPPAN J. SHL To:

¶1The Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri

¶2The Inspector of Police, M-4, Redhills Police Station, Chennai.

¶3The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras 23-07-2026

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Manivannan ..Petitioner Vs State rep. By The Inspector of Police, M-4, Redhills Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.645 of 2025 ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime No.645 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, M-4, Redhills Police Station, Chennai. For Petitioner: Mr.A.Murugavel For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)