S.Prakash Babu v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL.O.P.No.21548 of 2025 S.Prakash Babu ... Petitioner

Versus

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, NIB - CID Police Station, Salem District.

(Crime No.35 of 2020) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.35 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr. A.Saravanan 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 04.09.2023, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 of NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No.35 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

1/4

2. Earlier, this Court had dismissed the bail petition in Crl.OP.No.3391 of 2025 dated 13.02.2025 on the following reasons: "5. Considering the above facts and circumstances and on considering submissions of both sides and also the fact that after granting bail by the trial court, for more than 6 months he absconded and the fact that entire recovery of contraband from this petitioner alone and the fact that he is hailing from Bangalore, if he is released on bail, he may abscond and tamper the evidence and the fact that after securing him only, there is a progress in the trial and also the fact that there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody for more than three years and there is no progress in the trial. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that out of 12 listed witnesses, 6 witnesses have already been examined and the trial is progressing. He further submitted that there is every likelihood of the trial being completed at the earliest point of time. Hence, he opposed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the above facts, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the fact that the petitioner was involved in 150 kgs of 2/4

Ganja, which is a commercial quantity, and that 6 witnesses have already been examined and the remaining witnesses are yet to be examined, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to revisit the earlier order. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 02.12.2025 drl To

1. The Inspector of Police, NIB - CID Police Station, Salem District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

3/4

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

drl CRL.O.P.No.21548 of 2025 02.12.2025 4/4