Amalraj v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Pudukkottai Town

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 07.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 5089 of 2026 1.Amalraj 2.Prathap 3.Santhiya ... Petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Pudukkottai Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

(Crime No.49 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karuna Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 49 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Section 123 of BNS and Sections 22(C), 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985 r/w.18(C), 18(A), 28(A), 27(b)(ii), Drugs and 1/4

Cosmetic Act, 1940, in Crime No.49 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that 21.02.2026, the petitioners along with other accused persons having possession of 4,82,000 banned Pregabalin Capsules and banned Tanydol - 100 Tablets. Hence, the case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner are innocent and they have not involved in any offence as alleged in the FIR. The petitioners are fisherman by profession. When they preparing to go for fishing, they were arrested. There is no previous case is pending against the petitioners. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the offences are grave in nature. The quantity is commercial quantity. Totally there are 8 accused in this case. All the accused are in possession of the above said contraband. The FIR has been registered only on 22.02.2026. Investigation is in initial stage. A1 in this case is absconding. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners. However, the petitioners have no previous cases.

2/4

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, considering the nature of offence, though the petitioners have no previous case, the contraband involved in this case is commercial quantity and the same was recovered from these petitioners, A2 is also absconding and also considering that the investigation is in initial stage, this Court is declined to grant bail to the petitioners.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. (P D B J) 06.04.2026 TM To 1.The Inspector of Police, Pudukkottai Police Station, Pudukkottai District. (Crime No.49 of 2026) 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

3/4

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 5089 of 2026 Date : 07.04.2026 4/4