Nimal Awan v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Nimal Awan ..Petitioner Vs State Rep. By The Inspector of Police PEW Pallikaranai Unit, Chennai ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner/A3 on bail in pending investigation in Crime No.139 of 2025 on the file of PEW Pallikaranai unit, for the offences under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act. For Petitioner:

Mr.N.Navin Bharat For Respondent:

Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.12.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act in Crime No.139 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that when the police intercepted a car, they found the petitioner along with other accused in possession of 40 kg of ganja each for Al and A2 and one bag allegedly contained 30 kg of ganja for A3.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there are totally three accused and the present petitioner is arrayed as A3. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that even against this petitioner there was recovery of commercial quantity of contraband and now, the case is posted for furnishing of copies. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; taking note of the submission made by the learned Government counsel (Crl.Side); as rightly contended by the learned Government counsel (Crl.Side), the recovery against the petitioner is a commercial quantity. Based on his submissions, this Court could not find any material to overcome the rigour under section 37 of NDPS Act. Furthermore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that completion of investigation could not be a ground to overcome the rigour under section 37 of NDPS Act.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 12-06-2026 SHL To:

1. The Inspector of Police PEW Pallikaranai Unit, Chennai

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras

3. The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL 12-06-2026