Mathi @ Mathiyazhagan v. The State By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP No. 30628 of 2025 Mathi @ Mathiyazhagan Petitioner(s) Vs State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, D-1, Triplicane, Police Station, Chennai Cr.No.630 of 2025.

Respondent(s) PRAYER:

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner/accused-2 in Cr.No.630 of 2025 dated 29.09.2025 pending on the file of the respondent police, For Petitioner(s):

Mr.S.Noorudeen For Respondent(s):

Mr.A.Gopinath, GA (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.09.2025 by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 29(1) of NDPS Act in connection with the Cr. No.630 of 2025, seeks bail.

2. The allegations of the petitioner is that on 29.09.2025, based on the secret information, the police team went to the scene of occurrence, found the petitioner along with other accused selling ganja. The respondent police seized 4.90 kg of Ganja from the accused. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent and no way connected with the alleged offence, and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the contraband involved in this case is an intermittent quantity and Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not attracts to the present case and that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.09.2025, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution's case and on instructions submitted that though alleged contraband comes under the intermittent category, the petitioner has two previous case pending against him, out of which, one case similar in nature and the other one under Section 302 of IPC. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, and also the fact that the petitioner has two previous cases pending against him, out of which, one case similar in nature, and there is

a likelihood of indulging in similar kind of offence in future, this Court is not inclined to grant the bail the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 10.11.2025 gbi To 1.The Inspector of Police, D-1, Triplicane, Police Station, Chennai.

2. The II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

gbi CRL OP No. 30628 of 10.11.2025