Bharathi v. State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Bharathi S/o.Palani, No.62, Pillaiyarkuppam Village, Polippakkam Post, Arakonam Taluk, Ranipet District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep.by, Inspector of Police, Banavaram Police Station, Ranipet District.

Cr.No.305/2025.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.305 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. G P SIVAKUMAR For Respondent(s):

MR.N.PALANIVEL, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE )

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 29(1), 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, in Crime No.305 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with other accused, was found to be in illegal possession of 1.200 kgs of ganja. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has no connection with the alleged offence and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that 1.200 kgs of ganja was recovered and that the petitioner has two previous cases pending against him. He further submitted that the case involves narcotic substances and that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it may embolden him to indulge in similar activities. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the present Criminal Original Petition.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

6. Considering the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.

Side), this is a case involving recovery of 1.200 kgs of ganja and that the petitioner has two previous cases against him. This clearly demonstrates that if bail is granted, there is a likelihood of the petitioner misusing the liberty and thereby subverting the course of justice. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

09-06-2026 DRL To 1.The Inspector of Police, Banavaram Police Station, Ranipet District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 09-06-2026