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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Pradeep ... Petitioner -vsState Rep by, The Inspector of Police, F-4 Thousand Lights Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.145 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.145 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.P.Santhosh For Respondent :

Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ********** 1/5

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.04.2025, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w.20(b)(ii)(c) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 in Crime No.145 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.04.2025 at 9.00 hours as the Sub Inspector of Police, Tr.K.Mohanasundaram, attached to the F4 Thousand Lights Police Station, received secret information that the accused pradeep, the petitioner/accused herein, from Chintadripet, was at Thousand Lights, Wallace Graden 2nd street, in possession of ganja to sell. After receiving approval from the Inspector of Police, the SI of police went to the spot with his team, which included Head Constable 57809 Tr.Chakravarthy and Constable 52866 Tr.Damodharan. The accused was found at the crime scene about 9.30 a.m., The informer indentified the accused, and the accused was found to be in possession of a commerical quantity of ganja 22.445 kgs for sale. Hence, the case. 3.The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was taken from his home to the police station, and thereafter, the case was foisted. In this regard, he relied on some CCTV footage photographs and stated that an RTI 2/5

application had been filed seeking the footage, but it was refused by the Public Information Officer, citing that the camera was not functioning. Hence, they were unable to produce it. He further submitted that the suppression of CCTV footage is sufficient to show that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, and the recovery is also doubtful, with a mandatory violation. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4.The Government Advocate (Criminal Side) reported that the petitioner had previously filed a writ petition in W.P.No.17483 of 2025, before this Court seeking CCTV footage, which was dismissed as withdrawn due to lack of pursuit. He further submitted that 22 kgs of Ganja had been recovered from the petitioner, constituting a commercial quantity, and bail cannot be granted based on mere suspicion. Hence, opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. I have gone through the material placed on record. The photographs raise doubts about the petitioner's appearance at the police station. However, other facts reveal that 22 kgs of Ganja, a commercial quantity, was recovered from him. Disproving the same and to satisfy Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires higher degree of evidence, and mere suspicion is not sufficient to dispel Section 37 of NDPS Act. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner hasn't made 3/5

out any case or grounds to satisfy Section 37 of NDPS Act, hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

11.11.2025 mpa To 1.The Inspector of Police, F-4 Thousand Lights Police Station, Chennai.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4/5

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

mpa 11.11.2025 5/5