M.Prakash v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Uthapanaickanur

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 15.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 7303 of 2026 M.Prakash ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Uthapanaickanur Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.49 of 2026)

...Respondents/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Ramnath 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. 49 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 25 of NDPS Act, in Crime No.49 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory 1/4

bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.03.2026, on secret information, the respondent police went to the scene of occurrence and found that the petitioner is in illegal possession of Ganja. On seeing the police officials, he dropped the bag and fled away from the scene of occurrence. In that bag they found 3 kgs. and 900 gms of Ganja. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that the offences are grave in nature. On seeing the police officials the petitioner dropped the Ganja bag and ran away from the scene of occurrence. The occurrence is recent one and the investigation is pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed the granting of bail to the petitioner. Investigation is still pending. The quantity involved is not commercial quantity. The petitioner has two previous cases for commercial quantity.

2/4

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, that though the quantity involved is not commercial quantity, investigation is in initial stage, the petitioner is having two previous case for commercial quantity, this Court is declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. (P D B J) 15.04.2026 TM To 1.The Inspector of Police, Uthapanaickanur Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.49 of 2026) 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

3/4

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7303 of 2026 Date : 15.04.2026 4/4