Michaelraj v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 29.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Michaelraj

...Petitioner/Accused-2

Vs The State rep. by the Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Thoothukudi.

(F.No.DRI/CZU/TTIN/VIII/ 48/10/INT-1/2021)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand for Mr.P.Thanga Prithvi Rajan Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.S.Gurumoorthi Special Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in F.No.DRI/CZU/TTIN/VIII/48/10/INT-1/2021 on the file of the respondent police.

1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 16.07.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21, 23, 25, 28, 29 of NDPS Act in F.No.DRI/CZU/TTIN/VIII/48/10/INT-1/2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that based on the secret information, on 15.07.2021, at about 5.00 hrs, when the respondent police were in patrol duty, they found that the petitioner and other accused were in illegal joint possession of 4705 grams of contraband. 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. He would further submit that he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 16.07.2021. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner. 2/5

4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner and other accused were in illegal joint possession of 4705 grams of contraband, due to which the case has been registered under Sections 8(c), 21, 23, 25, 28, 29 of NDPS Act in F.No.DRI/CZU/TTIN/VIII/48/10/INT-1/2021. He would further submit that the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity and the petitioner was earlier convicted for the very same kind of offence and however, in this case, contraband recovered from the petitioner. He would further submit that investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed and the case in C.C.No.80 of 2022 is posted for trial by the learned Principal Special Judge for EC and NDPS Act, Madurai. He would further submit that the offences are grave in nature and 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 considering the facts that quantity 3/5

involved is a commercial quantity and in this case, investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed and the case in C.C.No.80 of 2022 is posted for trial by the learned Principal Special Judge for EC and NDPS Act, Madurai, and the petitioner was earlier convicted for the very same kind of offence and according to the prosecution, in this case the contraband was recovered from this petitioner and thereby, the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act and taking into considering the gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. (P D B J) 29.04.2026 apd To 1.The Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Thoothukudi.

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

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J apd

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 6854 of 2026 Date : 29.04.2026 5/5