Goutham v. The State Rep. By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.2243 of 2026 Goutham ... Petitioner Vs.
The State by its The Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.329 of 2025, pending investigation on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.E.Sathiyaraj For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
O R D E R
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.12.2025 for the alleged offence under Sections 8(c) r/w and 29(1) of NDPS Act in Cr.No.329 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
1/5
2. The allegation against the petitioner/A3 is that he travelled along with A1 and A2 in a car bearing Registration No. TN-49-AY-6426. On prior information, they were intercepted by the respondent police, and after compliance with the mandatory provisions under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 54 grams of Methamphetamine were seized in this case. After recording the statements of all three persons, a case was registered and the petitioners were arrested.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as A3 in this case and no recovery was effected from him. Though it is alleged that the petitioner travelled along with A1 and A2, he was not aware of the possession of Methamphetamine by A1. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in incarceration since 29.12.2025 and is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that though the recovery was effected from A1, all the accused travelled together in the car. He further submitted that there were various banking transactions between the petitioner and the main supplier, who is ranked as A4 and he is 2/5
yet to be arrested. There were several money transactions made for the purpose of purchasing Methamphetamine, and thereby the petitioner is also one of the main accused. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. I have also gone through the statement recorded from the petitioner as well as the other connected records, which reveal that the petitioner actively participated in procuring the contraband from A4, the absconding accused, by paying huge sums of money through UPI transactions. Further, the petitioner was aware of the possession of contraband by A1 and he has also travelled in the car. Under such circumstances, the petitioner had conscious possession of the contraband and, therefore, has to satisfy the requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
6. Considering the above facts and reasons, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 24.02.2026 Vv 3/5
To
1. The Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
4/5
K.RAJASEKAR , J.
Vv Crl.O.P.No.2243 of 2026 24.02.2026 5/5