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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Karthick ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep By, The Inspector of Police T-4, Pudur Police Station, Chennai.

Crime No.6 of 2025 ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.6 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 29(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and pass such further or other orders.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.R.Vijayakumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.02.2026 for alleged offences under Section 8(c), read with Sections 20(b)(ii) (B) and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act,

1985, in Crime No. 6 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused was found in possession of 1.300 Kilograms of ganja pursuant to which he was arrested and remanded in judicial custody. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 10.02.2026 solely based on the confession of a co-accused, who was allegedly found in possession of 1.300 kilograms of the banned substance. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner has no connection to the said recovery. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has been in incarceration since 10.02.2026 and hence prayed for grant of bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender with five previous cases, including two NDPS cases and one murder case. He contends that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him absconding or tampering with evidence

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) regarding the petitioner's criminal antecedents, specifically the five pending cases, which includes a murder charge and two NDPS violations, this Court is of the view that it would not be appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 30-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.

2.The Superintendent, Central Puzhal Prison.

3.The Inspector of Police, T-4, Pudur Police Station, Chennai. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

Jeni 30-03-2026