Syed Sirajudeen v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 01.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Syed Sirajudeen

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs Rep. by Jr. Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control Bureau, Chennai zonal Unit (NCB.F.No.48/1/01/2025/NCB/MDS)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Sujith 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.48/1/01/2025/NCB/MDS on the file of the respondent police.

1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.01.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w. 22(c), 23(c), 28 and 29 of NDPS Act in NCB.F.No.48/1/01/2025/NCB/MDS 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 982 grams of Methamphetamine . 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. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.01.2025. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner along with other accused were found in illegal possession of 982 grams of Methamphetamine which is a commercial quantity. He would further submit that the contraband was 2/5

recovered from this petitioner. He would also submit that this case is posted for trial and already P.W.1 was examined in this case. There are materials available as against the petitioner. 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 also the considering the fact that the alleged commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from this petitioner and also the fact that in this case trial has been commenced and P.W.1 was already examined, at this stage it is not appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Hence the petition stands dimissed.

(P D B J) 01.04.2026 aav 3/5

To 1.The Jr. Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control Bureau, Chennai zonal Unit 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J aav

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 5408 of 2026 Date : 01.04.2026 5/5