Ravi @ Powder Ravi v. State Rep.By Its The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.11.2025 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.25852 of 2025 Ravi @ Powder Ravi ... Petitioner -vsState Rep by, The Inspector of Police, N-2 Kasimedu Police Station, Chennai.
(Crime No.712 of 2024) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.712 of 2024 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner :
Mr.T.S.Srinivasan For Respondent :
Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ********** 1/8
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.11.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) in Crime No.712 of 2024, registered on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.11.2024 at about 10.00 hours based on a secret information the respondent police went near Kasipuram and intercepted A1 / Raja @ Raja Retti and found that he was in illegal possession of 3 kgs of Ganja; that based on his confession the respondent police seized another 18 kgs of Ganja which was illegally kept in a Hotel; that upon further interrogation of A1 it is revealed that he has purchased the contraband from Andhra Pradesh and Orissa for selling the same along with this petitioner and other accused for their personal gain. Hence this case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner was in judicial custody since 18.11.2024; and there is no possibility to induce or conspire with A1. It is also alleged that two days prior to alleged seizure, this 2/8
petitioner was in continuous touch with A1 through phone and same is also falsified by the fact that this petitioner was in prison during that period and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and sought for bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case, submitted that the statement of the arrested accused revealed that this petitioner also went to Andhra Pradesh and purchased the contraband. He further submitted that there are frequent calls made between the petitioner herein and A1 through phone, hence based on the call particulars this petitioner has been added as accused, apart from the confession statement recorded from A1 and opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. I have considered the submissions made on both sides and on perusal of records, it is specifically stated that the petitioner was in prison from 18.11.2024 onwards, whereas the confession statement of the accused reveals that during few days before 26.11.2024, he went to Andhra Pradesh and purchased contraband. This itself shows that by confession recorded from A1 false implication is made in this case. It is also admitted by the learned Government 3/8
Advocate (Crl. Side) that the phone belongs to the petitioner herein was used by his daughter while the accused herein was in custody. In the counter it is also stated that during the date of occurrence there was continuous conversations between the petitioner herein and A1 through phone. As stated earlier, the petitioner was in custody from 18.11.2024 and there is no occasion to have telephonic conversation with A1 by the petitioner herein. Hence, I am of the view that the above reason is sufficient to satisfy the Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Though it is stated that the petitioner is having previous cases, considering the fact the way in which the petitioner is added as accused in this case, I am of the view that the Section 37 of the NDPS Act, has been fully satisfied, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate George Town, Chennai, and on further conditions that:- [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. 4/8
The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;
[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate George Town, Chennai daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation by the respondent police ; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];
[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
5/8
27.11.2025 rna Note:
1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.
2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.
To 1.The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate George Town, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, N-2 Kasimedu Police Station, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
6/8
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
rna Crl.O.P.No.25852 of 2025 7/8
27.11.2025 8/8