Vinoth Kannan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Nib Cid

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 15.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Vinoth kannan

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, NIB -CID Ramanathapuram District (Crime No. 7 of 2025)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Gokul For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 7 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. 1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / A3, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.05.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c)r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of NDPS Act in Crime No.7 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused were found in illegal possession of 180kgs of ganja. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent police has registered a false case against the petitioner and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the investigation has been completed and final report has been filed before the concerned Court. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.05.2025 Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that petitioner along with other accused were 2/5

found in illegal possession of 180kgs of ganja which is a commercial quantity. He would further submit that in this case investigation has been completed and trial has been commenced. He would further submit that all the accused persons caught red handed Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and the fact that the contraband involved in this case is commercial quantity and even as per the prosecution the petitioner also had conscious possession along with other accused and the petitioner is also having one previous case for similar kind of offence , hence this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Hence the petition stands dismissed.

(P D B J) 15.04.2026 aav 3/5

To 1.The Inspector of Police, NIB -CID Ramanathapuram District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J aav

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 367 of 2026 Date : 15.04.2026 5/5