Dinoth v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Dinoth S/o. Anand, No.1/224, Cheyur Road, Soolai, Avinashi, Tiruppur District.

Now residing at 1/223, Sakthi Nagar, RTO Office near, Avinashi, Tiruppur District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State represented by:

The Inspector of Police Avinashi Police Station, Tiruppur District.

[Crime No.1022 of 2025] ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. praying to enlarge the Petitioner on bail, pending investigation of the case in the Crime No.1022 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent. For Petitioner(s):

M/s. M. Vijayaragavan For Respondent(s):

Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Criminal side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.12.2025 for the alleged offences under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and

29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985 in Cr. No.1022 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.12.2025, the petitioner along with other accused was found in illegal possession of 38.40. kgs of Ganja and hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been under incarceration for more than 112 days since 17.12.2025. He would further submit that there are about 9 accused and the petitioner is A5 and there is no recovery from this petitioner and hence prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

4. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that though there is no recovery from this petitioner, only based upon his confession, they recovered 38.400 kgs of Ganja from the residence of A6, and it is also part of the confession statement that this petitioner was in close contact with A2 and therefore, he would submit that though there is no recovery from this petitioner/A5, since there was huge commercial quantity of recovery is made from the co-accused, the rigors under Section 37 of NDPS Act would attract. Therefore, he strongly objected the bail application.

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

6. The contention of the learned Government Advocate that commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the co-accused and hence rigors under Section 37 of NDPS Act would attract, cannot be ignored. Apart from that, the petitioner has 11 previous cases and out of which, though 8 cases have been disposed of, there is a case of NDPS act pending against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court could not find any material to overcome rigors under Section 37 of NDPS Act and upon the fact that the petitioner has previous cases including one case of NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 08-04-2026 MJS 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.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

MJS To

1. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

2. The Inspector of Police, Avinashi Police Station, Tiruppur District. 08-04-2026