Muhammed Anas v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Muhammed Anas
...Petitioner/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, NIB-CID Kanyakumari District (Crime No. 2 of 2022 )
...Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 2 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.04.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w.20(b)(ii) 1/5
(c) and 25 of NDPS Act in Crime No. 2 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused were found in illegal possession of 210kgs of ganja. Hence, the case..
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent police has registered a false case against the petitioner and he is not involved in any such activities as alleged by the respondent police.He would further submit that the petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.04.2024. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner along with other accused were found in illegal possession of 210kgs of ganja which is a commercial quantity. He would further submit that in this trial commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
2/5
5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions on either side, nature of offences and the fact that the contraband involved in this case is commercial quantity and there is no change in circumstances of the case and the only change is circumstance raised by the petitioner is that in this case witnesses have been examined and this Court also called for report from the trial Court and as per the report one more witness have to be cross examined and the case is posted for cross examination of DW1 and at this stage it is not appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner, hence this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Hence the petition stands dismissed.
(P D B J) 23.06.2026 aav 3/5
To 1.sThe Inspector of Police, NIB-CID Kanyakumari District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
P. DHANABAL, J aav
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 8118 of 2026 Date : 23.06.2026 5/5