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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Crl.O.P.No.36047 of 2025 Ananth ... Petitioner/A-1 Vs.

State, rep by.

The Inspector of Police, PEW Triplicane Unit, Chennai District.

(Crime No.79 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in connection with C.C.No.1326 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, Chennai.

For Petitioner :

Mr.A.Tamil Selvan For Respondent :

Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.06.2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 8(C) read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of N.D.P.S Act, 1985 in Crime No.79 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail. 1/4

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 27.06.2025, the de-facto complainant, Jagan Babu, Sub-Inspector of Police, PEW Triplicane Unit, lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner and another person were found in illegal possession of 22.750kgs of ganja, based on which an FIR was registered against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the recovery from the petitioner was only 12kgs of ganja, which falls under intermediate quantity and not commercial quantity. He also submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and undertakes not to tamper with the witnesses. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the quantity of ganja seized from the petitioner/accused No.1 is 22.750 kgs of ganja, which constitutes commercial quantity. He further submitted that one previous case is pending against the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner and the other accused had travelled together and that, even if 12kgs is attributed to the petitioner, when 2/4

taken together with the quantity recovered from the other accused, namely Dharanishwaran, it would fall within the definition of commercial quantity, thereby attracting the bar under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail.

5. In view of the above factual position, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed.

02.03.2026 nvi To 1.The Inspector of Police, PEW Triplicane Unit, Chennai District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3/4

C.KUMARAPPAN ,J., nvi Crl.O.P.No.36047 of 2025 02.03.2026 4/4