Ajith v. The State Represented By,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-04-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No.3571 of 2026 AND CRL OP NO. 9998 OF 2026,CRL OP NO. 1805 OF 2026,CRL OP NO. 4308 OF 2026,CRL OP NO. 8442 OF 2026,CRL OP NO. 35737 OF 2025,CRL OP NO. 4603 OF 2026,CRL OP NO. 8805 OF 2026
1. Ajith S/o. Devaraj, No.18/13, A-Block, 3rd Street, Ezhil Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Chennai District.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The State represented by, Inspector of Police, P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.579 of 2025 Respondent(s) CRL OP No. 9998 of 2026
1. Ranjith @ Periya Pambu S/o.Arumugam, No.45, Nehru Nagar, 10th Street, Tondaiyarpet, Chennai - 600 081.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The State rep by, The Inspector of Police P-6, Kondungaiyur Police Station, Chennai District. (Crime No.579/2025) Respondent(s) 1/11
CRL OP No. 1805 of 2026
1. J.Aravind @ Dolu S/o. JAGAN, NO.67, B, BLOCK, R.R.
NAGAR, KODUNGAIYUR, CHENNAI-600118 Petitioner(s) Vs
1. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police, P-6 Kodungaiyur Station, Chennai Crime No.579 Of 2025 Respondent(s) CRL OP No. 4308 of 2026
1. Firoz Reza @ Kajaha S/o. Shalilur Ahamed, Ward 20, Azad Nagar, Araria (Dis) Bihar-8544311.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police P6, KOdungaiyur P.S., Pulianthope, Chennai District.
Respondent(s) CRL OP No. 8442 of 2026
1. Subash S/o. Madhankumar, No.302A, C Block, RajaRathinam Nagar, 2nd street, Ezhil Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Chennai.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. State rep by, Inspector of Police, P6, Kodungaiyur Police station, Chennai. Crime No.579/2025.
Respondent(s) 2/11
CRL OP No. 35737 of 2025
1. Faijohn Ahammed Alias Faizan Ahamed S/o.Faiyaz Ahamed, No.1158, 18th Central Cross Street, MKB Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Chennai-600 039 2.Sadhak Ussain Alias Shadab Hussain S/o.Nasaraq Kathoon, Kannadhasan nagar, Dharulum Masjid Madharsha, Kodungaiyur, Chennai - 600118.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, P-6, Kodungaiyur Police Station, Chennai District.
Respondent(s) CRL OP No. 4603 of 2026
1. Sanjay @ Chichi Son of Kesavan, No.90, B Kalyanapuram Main Road, Vyasarpadi, Chennai - 600 039 Petitioner(s) Vs
1. state rep by Rep by the Inspector of Police, P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station, Chennai.
Crime No.579/2025 Respondent(s) CRL OP No. 8805 of 2026
1. Praveen Kumar @ Gullu S/o.Venkatesan, No.537, E-Block, J.J.Nagar, Korukkupet, Chennai - 21.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The State rep by, The Inspector of 3/11
Police P-6, Kodungaiyur Police Station, Chennai District.
(Crime No.579 of 2025) Respondent(s) COMMON PRAYER Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 483 of BNSS, praying to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in Connection with the Crime No.579 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.
For Petitioner(s) in Crl.OP.No.3571/2026:
Mr.D.Padmanabhan For Petitioner(s) in Crl.OP.No.9998/2026:
Mr.S.Sathish Rajan For Petitioner(s) in Crl.OP.No.1805/2026:
Mr.K.Sarath Babu For Petitioner(s) in Crl.OP.No.4308/2026:
Mr.Pranava Charan.M.D For Petitioner(s) in Crl.OP.No.8442/2026:
Mr.D.Padmanabhan For Petitioner(s) in Crl.OP.No.35737/2025:
Mr.K.Shanmugam For Petitioner(s) in Crl.OP.No.4603/2026:
Mr.M.Illiyas For Petitioner(s) in Crl.OP.No.8805/2026:
Mr.D.Padmanabhan For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) ******** C O M M O N O R D E R The petitioners in Crl.OP.No.35735 of 2025 [Faijohn Ahammed @ Faizan and Sadhak Ussain @ Shadab Hussain] are the accused 4 & 7, the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.1805 of 2026 [J.Aravind @ Dolu] is the 2nd accused, the petitioner in 4/11
Crl.OP.No.3571 of 2026 [Ajith] is the 6th accused, the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.9998 of 2026 [Ranjith @ Periya Pambu] is the 3rd accused, the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.4308 of 2026 [Firoz Reza @ Kajaha] is the 9th accused, the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.8442 of 2026 [Subash] is the 8th accused, the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.4603 of 2026 [Sanjay @ Chichi] is the 5th accused and the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.8805 of 2026 [Praveen Kumar @ Gullu] is the first accused.
2.According to the prosecution, on 19.11.2025 at about 23.00 hours, while Mr.Muralishankar, Sub-Inspector of Police was on station duty, on receiving reliable information, they have searched one Praveenkumar @ Gullu/A1 and other accused. While apprehending A1 to A6, Subash/A8 managed to escape from the spot. On conducting search in accordance with law, the respondent police recovered Nitrazepam Tablets I.P (Nitzascen-10) totally 1800 tablets from the possession of the accused. Thereafter, the above accused were arrested and on recording the confession statement, they came to know the involvement of Sadhak Ussain/A7 viz., the petitioner in Crl.OP.No.35737/2025. He would submit that he had purchased the same from an unknown person in the State of Bihar. They came to know about the involvement of the 9th accused/ Pyros Riza @ Kaaja through the confession statement of the 4th accused Faijohn 5/11
Ahammed @Faizan Ahamed and Sadaq Hussain @ Shadab Hussain/A7. Still, Faijohn Ahammed @Faizan Ahamed (A4) and Subash/A8 are the absconding accused.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the A9 was subsequently arrested on 29.11.2025 and the other accused were arrested on 21.11.2025. It is the submission of the petitioners that 120 tablets were recovered from A2 and there was no recovery from A5 and A6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that A4 and A7 though belong to Bihar, they went to Bihar only to write B.Ed., examination and that A7 was simply implicated in this case since because he is the relative to A4. In all these cases, it was contended that no grounds of arrest were given. In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(CRL.) No.3326 of 2026 [Dr.Rajender Rajan Vs.Union of India and another], and would contend that if no grounds of arrest is given, the petitioners are entitled for a bail. 4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.
commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from A1 & A3 and that from A2 and A8, an intermediate quantity of contraband was recovered. He would further submit that there are 10 previous cases against A1 and 9 previous cases against A8. He would also submit that the investigation is at the preliminary stage and they have to examine the further witnesses and they have to collect the report from forensic science laboratory. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that though there were no recovery from few accused, the investigation reveals that they were acting jointly along with the other accused and there are materials to prove the money trials as well as CDR particulars. He would stoutly deny the submission that the petitioners were not given the grounds of arrest and to substantiate the same, he has filed grounds of arrest of all these accused.
5.I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions. 6.In respect of non recovery from certain accused, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is too premature to go into those aspects as the investigation is at the preliminary stage. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that they are collecting CDR particulars and also other materials, to establish the money trials. Therefore, the question of going into such factual aspects at very threshold and would jeopardise the 7/11
prosecution. However, from the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, they have raised an objection in respect of the grounds of arrest. It is their contention that since the petitioners were not given grounds of arrest as contemplated under the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah's case (cited supra), their rights conferred under Article 21 & 22 has vitiated. Therefore, they are entitled to have a bail.
7.No doubt, the present case is subsequent to the pronouncement of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah's case (cited supra) [on 06.11.2025]. Therefore, there is a duty cast upon the respondent to give a grounds of arrest. In Mihir Rajesh Shah's case (cited supra), the concept of grounds of arrest jurisprudence has been dealt in detail, where it has been categorically held that the grounds of arrest should be provided to the accused, so as to defend himself before a bail Court or during his remand. In this case, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has submitted the grounds of arrest of these petitioners. In the grounds of arrest, the petitioners were explained as to why they have been arrested and what time they have been arrested. The arrest intimation has clearly explained that these petitioners were arrested for illegally keeping the contraband for sale. This was also acknowledged by the petitioners. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing for Firoz Reza @ 8/11
Kajaha (A9) would submit that there was no recovery and that there was a license to run the medical shop. It is the contention that he was not at all informed the grounds of arrest in a language known to him qua in Hindi. However, in the information of arrest, the accused signed in English and the arrest memo was also given in the language of English. Firoz Reza @ Kajaha (A9) was categorically admitted that he was informed about the arrest for illegal sales of Narcotic tablets.
8.From the above acknowledgment of Firoz Reza @ Kajaha (A9) and the similar acknowledgment of the other accused, this Court is of the firm view that the respondent police have complied the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah's case (cited supra) by giving the grounds of arrest. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment in SLP(CRL.) No.3326 of 2026 [Dr.Rajender Rajan Vs.Union of India and another], the Court did not take the arrest memo as the grounds of arrest. Further, even according to the prosecution case of the above reported case, the grounds of arrest were informed to the accused orally. But, in the case in hand, these petitioners were informed the grounds of arrest by written information. Therefore, the above ruling is not applicable to the present facts of the case. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioners were served with 9/11
the grounds of arrest. Hence, the defence of grounds of arrest urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners must fail. 9.Coming to the rigour under Section 37 of NDPS Act, this is a case of a commercial quantity and according to the prosecution case, though there was no recovery from some of the petitioners and they have been implicated based upon the confession, according to the prosecution, the investigation is still pending. Therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioners in respect of a nonrecovery of contraband cannot be gone into at this stage. Hence, this Court absolutely does not find any merits in all these petitions. 10.Accordingly, all the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. 24-04-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes kmi To 1.The X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
2.The State represented by, Inspector of Police, P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai-104.
10/11
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
kmi CRL OP Nos.3571 of 2026, 9998 OF 2026, 1805 OF 2026, 4308 OF 2026, 8442 OF 2026, 35737 OF 2025, 4603 OF 2026 & 8805 OF 2026 24-04-2026 11/11