Rajasekar v. The State of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Rajasekar ...Petitioner/Accused No.3 Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Pattuveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.245 of 2024) ...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mahendra Pathy

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- to enlarge the petitioner/A3 in C.C.No.455 of 2024 on the file of the Principle Special Court for Trial of Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner /A3, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.06.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.245 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on

28.06.2024 at about 14.00 hrs, the respondent police received the secret information regarding the transportation of Ganja in a vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 48 AE 0879 near backside of the Chinnamman Temple situated at Sithur to Nelur Road and intercepted the vehicle and found that the accused persons were in illegal possession of 20 kgs 700 gms of Ganja. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondent police have registered a false case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner is an innocent and he is nothing to do with the alleged offences. He is in judicial custody from 29.06.2024. Therefore prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the accused was found in illegal possession of

20.700 kgs of Ganja. He would further submit that the petitioner has four previous cases, out of which three cases are commercial in nature. He would further submit that the investigation has been completed and final report has been filed and hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

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

¶6Considering the rival submissions made on either side, considering the fact that the quantity of contraband involved in this case is a commercial quantity and he has three previous cases, which are similar in nature and further the petitioner has not satisfied the twin condition as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, hence, this Court is declined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶7Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

(P D B J)

06.04.2026 vsg

To

1.The Inspector of Police, Pattuveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLeOP(MD).eNo.15527eofe2025 eP.eDHANABAL,eJ., eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevsg eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeORDER eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeIN eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeCRLeOP(MD)eNo.e15527eofe2025 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeDateee:e06.04.2026