Mudassir v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.09.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Mudassir .... Petitioner/A2 Vs.

The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Nandambakkam Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.160 of 2024) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime No.158 of 2024 on the file of Respondent Police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.M.D.Ilayaraja For Respondent :

Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) *********

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested on 31.01.2025 arrest at the hands of the respondent police in connection with Crime No.160 of 2024, for offences punishable under Section 8(c), r/w 22(c), 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985 seeks bail. 1/4

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with accused person had entered into a conspiracy for illicit transportation and sale of contraband. Hence, the present case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. The contraband involved is of commercial quantity and hence the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would arise in granting bail. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the contraband recovered in this case is a commercial quantity and that the occurrence took place during night hours. He further submitted that, on seeing the police party, the accused attempted to run away from the scene of occurrence but were secured by the police. He also submitted that A1 and A2 were arrested, and during further investigation, it was revealed that A3, a native of Uttar Pradesh, had conspired in the offence, while the other two petitioners were responsible for securing the contraband. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail.

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

2/4

6. Admittedly, the case involves a covered quantity, namely 25 Nos of MDMA Tablet (Weight 10.28 gram). It is also found that, based on the information received, the police went to the place of occurrence, where the accused attempted to flee on seeing the police party. An enquiry was conducted, which subsequently revealed the involvement of Accused No.3, who was remanded in this case pursuant to the execution of a P.T. warrant on 31.01.2025. Though it is contended that there was no recovery at the place of occurrence, the recovery effected and the statements recorded from witnesses reveal the involvement of the other accused and petitioner as well.

7. Hence, considering the nature of the offence and bad antecedent of petitioner, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. 19.09.2025 nvi To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Alandur

2. The Inspector of Police, Nandambakkam Police Station, Chennai

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

3/4

nvi 19.09.2025 4/4