Mariraj @ Rasukutty v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Mukkudal

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 26.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Mariraj @ Rasukutty ..Petitioner/A2 Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Mukkudal Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.19 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner:Mr.R.Muthuram Advocate.

For Respondent :Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.19 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 32, 8(c) and 20(b)(ii) (A) of the NDPS Act, and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, in Crime No.19 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.01.2026 at about 16.00 hours, the respondent police received a secret information regarding the transportation of Ganja in two bikes bearing Registration No. TN 72 CU 0907 and TN 96 A 8376. Thereafter, the respondent Police arrived at the alleged occurrence place, where the respondent police found that the petitioner and other accused were in illegal possession of 10 gms of Ganja. Hence, the case.

2/6

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondent police have registered a false case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 32, 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act, and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The petitioner is an innocent and he is nothing to do with the alleged offences. Therefore prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the accused persons was found in illegal possession of 10 gms of Ganja, which is not a commercial quantity. However, the petitioner is a history sheeter and he has 10 previous cases, out of which, one case is similar in nature. He would further submit that the investigation is still pending and hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3/6

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

6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side, considering the fact that the quantity of contraband involved in this case is not a commercial quantity, but noting that the petitioner is a history sheeter and has 10 previous cases, out of which, one case is similar in nature and the investigation is not yet completed, hence, this Court is declined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7.

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

(P D B J) 26.03.2026 vsg 4/6

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Mukkudal Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

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

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 5927 of 2026 Date : 26.03.2026 6/6