Vikas Sham v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 30/03/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Vikas Sham ... Petitioner/Accused NO.2 Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Periyakulam Police Station, Theni District.

Crime No.135 of 2024. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- To release the petitioner on bail in C.C.No.48 of 2025 in Crime no.135 of 2024 on the file Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.

For Petitioner : MR.S.Nuniyandi for Mr.J.Jeyaaron Raja, Advocate.

1/5

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner / A2, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.07.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.135 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 30.06.2024, at about 09.00 hours, the respondent received a secret information and conducted vehicle check up at Periyakulam - Kumbakarai Road and identified the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-54-G-6124 Wagonr and TN-33 -BV-2230 Honda City. The respondent Police intercepted the vehicles and conducted search. During search, the petitioner and other accused were found in illegal possession of 100 grams of Ganja. Hence, the respondent police registered a case against the accused and arrested them. After completion of investigation, they filed a final report before the Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.48 of 2025. Hence the case. 2/5

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 the petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.07.2024. Therefore, he prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity. 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 the quantity of contraband involved in this case is a commercial quantity, this Court is not inclined to grant 3/5

bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 8.However, this Court directs the respondent police to produce the witnesses before the trial Court without any delay. (P D B J) 30.03.2026 1/2 dss To 1.The Inspector of Police, Periyakulam Police Station, Theni District.

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

4/5

P. DHANABAL,J dss

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.6407 of 2025 Date : 30/03/2026 1/2 5/5