Aaron v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Pew-Kovilpatti

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 6029 of 2026 Aaron

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, PEW-Kovilpatti Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

(Crime No.492 of 2023)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Kannappan Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 492 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.08.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.492 of 2023 on the file of 1/4

the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on secret information the respondent police went to the scene of occurrence and found that accused persons are found in possession of 600 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. There is no specific overt act against the petitioner. There is no recovery from this petitioner. This petitioner has been implicated on the basis of the confessions statement of the co-accused. Entire contraband was recovered from A1 and A2 and bail was also granted to them. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. This petitioner has been implicated based on the confession statement of the co-accused. The quantity involved in this case is commercial quantity. The total contraband is nearly 600 kgs. of ganja. The petitioner has two previous cases. Co-accused have been granted bail on the ground that they have no previous cases. A1 is only driver 2/4

of the vehicle. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the available records.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, the quantity involved in this case is commercial quantity and the petitioner also have some previous cases, similar in nature, I am declined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. (P D B J) 20.04.2026 TM To 1.The Inspector of Police, PEW-Kovilpatti Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

(Crime No.492 of 2023) 2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

3/4

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 6029 of 2026 Date : 20.04.2026 4/4