Alaguraj v. State Of Tamilnadur Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Alaguraj ..Petitioner(s) Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep.by, The Inspector of Police, NIB CID, Coimbatore Cr.No.46 of 2025.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner / Accused No.2 on bail in Cr.No.46 of 2025 now pending as CC.No.311 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Court for Essential Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore.

For Petitioner(s):

M/s.R.Radha Pandian For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Government Advocate (Criminal side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.06.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 8 (c), 20 (b) (ii) (c) and 29

(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.46 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner along with other accused was found in illegal possession of 22 kg of Ganja. Hence the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been in custody since 06.06.2025. He further submitted that the respondent Police have jointly recovered 22kg of Ganja from this petitioner and other accused. To substantiate the joint recovery, the respondent Police did not produce any electronic records. Furthermore, no trial has progressed for more than one year. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the entire 22 kg of Ganja was recovered from both the accused, A1 and A2 which is a commercial quantity. He further submitted that the case is posted today for the examination of witnesses; therefore, the question of no progress in the trial is factually incorrect. He further submitted that the non-production of CCTV records and other electronic evidence cannot be a ground for considering a bail application. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 5.As rightly submitted by the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner along with the other accused, was carrying a white gunny bag from which the respondent recovered 22kg of Ganja. No doubt, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 06.06.2025. However, it is the specific

contention of the petitioner that there has been no progress in trial. This statement was objected by the learned Government Advocate who submitted that the case is posted today for the examination of L.W.1. Therefore, the contention that there is no progress in the trial cannot be accepted at all. Since, the recovery involves a commercial quantity, and as rightly observed by the previous Bench in Crl.O.P.No.751 of 2026 dated 11.02.2026, the petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions. Hence, this Court does not find any grounds to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

6.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 03-06-2026 ep

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

EP To 1.The Inspector of Police, NIBCID, Coimbatore.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

03-06-2026