Madhu @ Madhan v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.12265 of 2025 Madhu @ Madhan ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by its The Inspector of Police, PEW Tiruvallur Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

... Respondent (Cr.No.29 of 2024) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.29 of 2025 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Deivasigamani 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 01.03.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 21(1), 25 of NDPS Act, 1985 in Cr.No.29 of 2025 pending on the file of the 1/5

respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with other accused were found in possession of 21.050kgs of ganja for sale and the same were seized by the respondent police.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner herein is arrayed as A4 and no recovery is made from the petitioner and only from other accused, the banned contraband seized. He further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 01.03.2025 and he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and reported that A1 to A6 went to Andhra Pradesh and purchased the contraband of 21 kgs and packed it in 5 gunny bags and transported the same to Tamilnadu by using 2/5

two wheeler. The police intercepted and arrested them. The petitioner was arrested with ganja red handedly. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel, though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no recovery from the petitioner herein, but, the fact reveals that while the petitioner was travelling along with other accused in a two wheeler , the police party intercepted them and caught them red handedly, and arrested them. Since the petitioner/accused has not satisfied the twin condition required under Section 37 of NDPS Act, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Vv 18.09.2025 To 3/5

1. The Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai.

2. The The Inspector of Police, PEW Tiruvallur Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

4/5

Vv Crl.O.P.No.12265 of 2025 18.09.2025 5/5