S.Manickam v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Pew-Madurai City

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL S.Manickam, S/o.Saravanakumar, No.84/85, North 2nd Street, Marathu Baskaradosh Nagar, Thideer Nagar, Madurai.. ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, PEW-Madurai City Police Station, Madurai. Crime No.188/2025.. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr. T. Maharanathan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-32B. For Bail in Crime No.188 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.08.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 21(c) and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.188 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on

20.08.2025, at about 08.15 a.m, on the secret information, the respondent police went to Fish Market of Mattuthavani. On seeing the police party, the accused tried to escape from the scene of occurrence. However, the respondent police nabbed them. On searching, the accused were found in illegal possession of 960 numbers of Nitrosen Tablet (10 mg). Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.08.2025. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground that the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity and the petitioner is having 5 previous case similar in nature and recovery was also made from the petitioner.

¶5This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity and the petitioner is having 5 previous case and all are similar kind of cases and recovery was also made from this petitioner and earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and there is no change in circumstances in this case and hence, this Court is declined to grant bail to the petitioner, at this stage.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. (P D B J)

03.06.2026 vsg TO

1.The Inspector of Police, PEW-Madurai City Police Station, Madurai.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLeOP(MD).eNo.8330eofe2026 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeP.eDHANABAL,J., vsg eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeORDER eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeIN eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeCRLeOP(MD)eNo.8330eofe2026 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeDateee:e03/06/2026