Malaisamy v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector Of Police, Madurai

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 27.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Malaisamy

...Petitioner/Accused No.12

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Madurai NIB-CID Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.374 of 2023)

...Respondent

/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.A.Vignesh For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 374 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police.

1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner /A12, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.10.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.374 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.05.2023, based on the secret information received from the informer, the police officials went to the place of occurrence and found that the petitioner and other accused persons were in possession of 2000 kgs of Ganja in their vehicle. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondent police have registered a false case against the petitioner 2/6

for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner is an innocent and he is nothing to do with the alleged offences. He would further contend that no contraband was recovered from the petitioner and he is not named accused. He is in judicial custody from 25.10.2023. Therefore prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that this case was registered as against the petitioner and others for the illegal transportation of 2000 kgs of Ganja, which is commercial quantity. The petitioner has seven previous cases and the same are commercial quantity. He would further submit that the petitioner was in conscious possession of contraband at the time of arrest. He would further submit that the investigation has been 3/6

completed and the final report has been filed and the same was taken on file and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. 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 a commercial quantity and though the petitioner is not named accused and based on the confession of co-accused, he has been implicated in this case, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and the petitioner has seven previous cases including commercial quantity, hence, this Court is declined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

4/6

7.

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

(P D B J) 27.04.2026 vsg To 1.The Inspector of Police, Madurai NIB-CID Police Station, Madurai 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. 7080 of 2026 Date : 27.04.2026 6/6