Surya v. State Represented By The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22-01-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
1. Surya S/o. Moorthy, No.10(1), Periyasamy Layout, 1st Street, Rathinapuri, Rathinapuri, Coimbatore-641 027.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore, Crime No. 600 of 2024 Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the Petitioner on bail in C.C.No.126 of 2025 on the file of the Additional District and Special Court of Essential Commodities Act cases at Coimbatore in Connection with Crime No. 600 of 2024 and pass such other or further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper and thus render Justice.
For Petitioner(s):
Murali Raja Gopalan For Respondent(s):
Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate(Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.12.2024 for the alleged offence under Section 8(c) r/w. Section 20(b)(ii)(C)
25 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No.600 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. This Court earlier considered the bail application of the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 16342 of 2025 and dismissed the same on 11.11.2025.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was involved in the transportation of 30 kg of ganja, joining hands with two other accused, and brought it to Tamil Nadu. After sharing it with some of the accused who were arrested in this case, 20.200 kg of ganja was segregated. On prior information, the police intercepted A1 to A3, and a small quantity of ganja was recovered from A1 and A2. Subsequently, A3 was interrogated, and based on his statement, 20.200 kg of ganja was recovered. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no proper seizure was effected, the seizure was not video-graphed, and the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Therefore, he prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. Admittedly, the quantity seized from the petitioner is a commercial quantity, and Section 37 of the NDPS Act applicable. Though it is stated that the seizure of contraband was not video-graphed, there are witnesses to speak about
the statement recorded from the petitioner, which led to the recovery of contraband. In these circumstances, the failure to video-graph the seizure is not a valid ground for granting bail unless other material to substantiate that the petitioner satisfies the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has not made out a case to satisfy Section 37 to seek bail. Hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
22-01-2026 Mpa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore, Crime No. 600 of 2024 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR J.
mpa CRL OP No. 1243 of 22-01-2026