S.Manikandan v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.10.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

1. S.Manikandan

2. Rajkumar Devanesan ... Petitioners -vsState Rep by, The Inspector of Police, T5 Vanagaram Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.220 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS Act, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.220 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners :

Mr.Kartik Soundararajan For Respondent :

Mr.S.Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) **********

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(b), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No.220 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner herein ranked as A8 and the respondent police recovered 18 grams of methaphatamine from the arrested accused and on investigation it revealed that this petitioner has supplied the ganja to the arrested accused. Hence this case. 1/3

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

rna

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the quantity seized in 18 grams of methaphatamine which is an intermediary quantity, no previous case is pending against the petitioners. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.

6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, the huge quantity of 18 grams of methaphatamine further revealed that this petitioner is the supplier of the same, and this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 1st petitioner. As per the 2nd petitioner is concerned it is stated that the 2nd petitioner is not an accused.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed on merits on behalf of the 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner is not an accused and closed on behalf of the 2nd petitioner.

30.10.2025 rna To 1.The Inspector of Police, T5 Vanagaram Police Station, Chennai.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

2/3

3/3