Ajith Alias Ajith Kumar v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Thatchanallur

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD)No.13212 of 2026 Ajith Alias Ajith Kumar ... Petitioner / Sole Accused

Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Thatchanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.222 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.222 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, or on his appearance. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthuram

For Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, Counsel for State of TN (Criminal Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.222 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that, based on credible information, the respondent Police conducted a search of a car parked opposite to Bathra Kaliamman Temple, North Street, Thatchanallur, Karaiyiruppu. The vehicle was found locked. Upon inspection, the respondent Police found 140 kilograms of ganja concealed inside the vehicle. Accordingly, the contraband and the vehicle were seized and a case was registered. During the course of investigation, the owner of the vehicle, namely Sabariswaran, was arrested. The statement recorded from him disclosed that he had acted in concert with the other accused, including the present petitioner. It is further alleged that the said vehicle had been used by the petitioner for transporting the contraband from the neighbouring State to Thoothukudi with the intention of smuggling it to Sri Lanka. The investigation also revealed that the petitioner was in possession and use of the said vehicle during the relevant period.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though the case was registered in December, 2025, the investigation has not yielded any material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. It was contended that the Call Detail Records, tower location details and forensic reports are still awaited and that, as on date, no scientific or electronic evidence has been collected to establish the petitioner's involvement. Therefore, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶4Per contra, the learned Counsel for State (Criminal Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the investigation is still in progress. Though the Call Detail Records, tower location details and forensic reports are yet to be received, the statements of certain witnesses and the statement of the co-accused prima facie indicate that the petitioner had been using the said vehicle and was involved in the transportation of the contraband. He further submitted that the case involves the seizure of 140 kilograms of ganja, which is a commercial quantity, and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

¶5This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶6It is true that the scientific evidence, including the Call Detail Records, tower location details and forensic reports, is still awaited. However, the investigation is at a crucial stage and the prosecution has collected prima facie materials, including the statements of witnesses and the co-accused, indicating the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence. Having regard to the fact that the contraband involved is of commercial quantity and that the investigation is still in progress, this Court is of the view that the absence of scientific evidence at this stage cannot, by itself, be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to work out his remedy before the competent Court after substantial progress in the investigation or upon filing of the final report, if so advised. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail at this stage. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

20.07.2026 pal To

1.The Inspector of Police, Thatchanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLoOP(MD).oNo.13212oofo2026 oK.oRAJASEKARoo,Jo. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopal ORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.13212oofo2026 Dateoo:o20.07.2026