Muthulingam v. The Union Of India

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Muthulingam

...Petitioner/Accused-1

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Contral Bureau, Chennai Zonal Unit.

(NCB F.No.48/1/04/2025/NCB/MDS)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Vignesh Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.C.Arul vadivel @ Sekar Special Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in NCB F.No.48/1/04/2025/NCB/MDS on the file of the respondent police.

1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 28 and 29 of NDPS Act in NCB F.No. 48/1/04/2025/NCB/MDS on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that based on the secret information, on 14.02.2026, when the respondent police were in patrol duty, they found that the petitioner and other accused were in illegal joint possession of 155 kgs of ganja. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.02.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2/5

respondent would submit that the petitioner and other accused were in illegal joint possession of 155 kgs of ganja, due to which the case has been registered under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 28 and 29 of NDPS Act in NCB F.No.48/1/04/2025/NCB/MDS. He would further submit that the petitioner has three previous cases which are similar in nature. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he strongly 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, nature of offence, and considering the facts that quantity involved is a commercial quantity and even according to the prosecution, the petitioner was also travelling in the vehicle, in which the contraband was seized and the petitioner has three previous cases, which are similar in nature and taking into considering the gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 3/5

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. (P D B J) 16.04.2026 apd To 1.The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Contral Bureau, Chennai Zonal Unit.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J apd

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 4084 of 2026 Date : 16.04.2026 5/5