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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Haseemfahan ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, PEW, Ranipet, Ranipet District.

(Crime No.14 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.14 of 2026 pending on the file of the respondent police For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Sudhanthiran.S.S For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Government Advocate (Criminal side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.02.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.14 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 21 kg of Ganja. Hence the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been in custody since 20.02.2026. He further submitted that the First Information report refers to the recovery of 21 kg of Ganja, but contains no specifications regarding the package and other material aspects, which clearly demonstrates the fabrication of the First Information Report against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner. 4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the investigation is still pending and that a First Information Report cannot be construed as an encyclopedia. He further submitted that, according to the prosecution, there was a recovery of 21 kg of Ganja. He strongly opposed the bail application on the ground that, since a commercial quantity is involved, the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5.As rightly submitted by the learned Government Advocate, a First Information Report cannot always be expected to contain all material particulars. It is also relevant to mention that the investigation is still pending. In such circumstances, this is a huge quantity that falls within the definition of a commercial quantity, the petitioner has not putforth any grounds to overcome

the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

16-06-2026 ep To 1.The Inspector of Police, PEW, Ranipet, Ranipet District.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

EP 16-06-2026