Muthupullani v. The State of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 29/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Muthupullani, S/o.Muniyasamy, 1/45, Panjanthangi, Thirupullani, Ramanathapuram District.. ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep By, The Inspector of Police, Thirupullani Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. Cr.No.25/2026.. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rama Guru,

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian,

Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-32B. For Bail in Crime No. 25/2026 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 01.02.2026, for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.25 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail.

¶2The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner joined hands with other accused was found in possession of 21.500 kgs of Ganja in a car and that the petitioner and other accused were arrested with contraband. Hence, the case has been registered.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was in possession of commercial quantity, the co-accused was similarly placed has already been released on bail. He further submit that the investigation is completed and hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), appearing for the respondent Police, submitted that this is the second bail application. The earlier bail application in Crl.O.P.(MD).No. 7657 of 2026 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2026 on the ground that the entire contraband was recovered from the petitioner. He further submitted that, though this Court granted bail to the co-accused in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.10151 of 2026 vide order dated

15.06.2026, no contraband was recovered from the co-accused, and he was arrayed as an accused only based on the confession statement of the other accused. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6.A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was arrested on

01.02.2026 after he was intercepted by the respondent police after compliance of mandatory provisions and found in possession of 21.500 kg of ganja. This Court already, in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7657 of 2026, vide order dated 29.04.2026, dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is the one transporting contraband in a car and was caught red-handed. Though it is stated that the co-accused was released on bail, it is specifically stated that contraband was recovered from the other accused and not from the petitioner in Crl.O.P.

(MD).No.10151 of 2026, thereby, bail was granted. As far as this petitioner is concerned, contraband was recovered directly from this petitioner and the filing of the final report is not a ground to satisfy the twin conditions contemplated under the NDPS Act and there is no ground for granting bail. Hence, I am not inclined to consider the petition for a grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

(K R S J)

29.06.2026 vsg TO

1.The Inspector of Police, Thirupullani Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶2The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. K. RAJASEKAR,J., vsg ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12703 of 2026 Date : 29/06/2026