Nataraja v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Crl.O.P.Nos.1318 and 2304 of 2026 Nataraja ... Petitioner/A-2 in Crl.O.P.No.1318 of 2026 Murugesh ... Petitioner/A-4 in Crl.O.P.No.2304 of 2026 Vs.

State Represented by The Inspector of Police, PEW Tirupathur Police Station, Tirupathur (Crime No.169 of 2025) ... Respondent in both cases PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.169 of 2025, pending investigation on the file of respondent police. For Petitioners :

Mr.B.S.Manikandan in both cases For Respondent :

Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) in both cases C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.09.2025 for the alleged offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in Crime No.169 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail. 1/4

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners and three other persons stating that the co-accused A1 was in possession of 20kg 872gms of the prohibited narcotic drug, namely Ganja. As per the prosecution, no recovery was made from the petitioner or the other accused persons except A-1. Hence, the FIR has been registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 11.09.2025. He further submitted that the petitioners are not connected with the offence and that only 20kg 872grams of Ganja, which is an intermediate quantity, was recovered, and that they are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he submitted that this is a fit case in which the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that no previous case is pending against the petitioners. He also submitted that the petitioners and the other accused had travelled together and that, even if 20kg 872grams of Ganja is attributed to the petitioners, when taken together with the quantity recovered from the 2/4

other accused, it would fall within the definition of commercial quantity, thereby attracting the bar under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail.

5. In view of the above submission of the learned Government Advocate, Section 37 of NDPS Act starring against the petitioner. Hence, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

6. Accordingly, these Criminal Original petitions are dismissed. 02.03.2026 nvi To 1.The Inspector of Police, PEW Triplicane Unit, Chennai District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3/4

C.KUMARAPPAN ,J., nvi Crl.O.P.Nos.1318 and 2304 of 2026 02.03.2026 4/4