V.Saranraj v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.28721 of 2025
1. V.Saranraj
2. Rexith Reginmon ... Petitioners Vs.
State:
Inspector of Police, T-5, Vanagaram Police Station, Vanagaram, Chennai.
... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarged the petitioners on bail Cr.No.220 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police station. For Petitioners : Mr.B.Madeshwaran For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
O R D E R
The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.09.2025 for the alleged offence under Sections 8(C), 20(b)(ii)(A), 1/7
22(b), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No.220 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that based on the secret information about the illegal transport of Narcotic substance, the respondent went to the scene of occurrence, they found that the accused persons found to be in possession of 18 grams of Methamphetamine, 150 grams of ganja and 12 numbers of MDMA (6 grams). The further case of the prosecution is that the accused persons have received the contraband from A4 and selling the same to the local public in Chennai for his personal gain and the accused persons were arrested along with the seized contraband. Hence, the present case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the coaccused A1 to A3 were transported the contraband and the same were recovered from them. He further submitted that 13 grams of Methamphetamine and 150 grams of ganja were recovered from A1, which 2/7
is an intermediate quantity. The contraband recovered from the entire case is also a intermediate quantity. The petitioners are in judicial custody from 18.09.2025 He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the this Court. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the investigation in this case is not concluded. Totally, there are seven accused involved in this case and all of them were arrested. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. I have gone through the FIR and the counter filed by the respondent which reveals that the specific overt act against the petitioners is that the accused person have purchased the above said contraband from Bangalore and selling the same to the local public in Chennai for their personal gain. The contraband seized from the accused persons is an 3/7
intermediate quantity and even the total quantity of contraband seized is also falls within the intermediate quantity. Hence, the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act is not applicable to these petitioners. Further reported that the petitioners are not having any previous cases.
7. Considering the above facts and the period of incarceration, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 8.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing bonds for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Poonamalle and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;
4/7
[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [c] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];
[d] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 28.10.2025 Vv Note :
1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.
2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of 5/7
this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Poonamalle
2. The Inspector of Police, T-5, Vanagaram Police Station, Vanagaram, Chennai.
3. The Puzhal Jail, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
6/7
K.RAJASEKAR , J.
Vv Crl.O.P.No.28721 of 2025 28.10.2025 7/7