Baipureedy Raju @ Nagamani v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Baipureedy Raju @ Nagamani

...Petitioner/Accused No.4

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Cumbum North Police Station Theni District.

(Crime No. 343 of 2024)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner :Mr.M.Tamilarasan Advocate.

For Respondent :Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., praying to grant bail to the petitioner in Crime No.343 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.

1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused No.4, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.02.2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Cr. No.343 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.12.2024 at 23.00 hours, based on the secret information received by the Sub Inspector of Police, he along with police party went to Uthamapuram Primary Health Centre at Cumbum. On seeing the police party, the petitioner along with other accused persons attempted to escape. Thereafter, the respondent Police nabbed them and on enquiry, it was found that the petitioner and other accused persons were in illegal possession of 29.930 kgs of Ganja. Hence the case.

2/6

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondent police have registered a false case against the petitioner. The petitioner is an innocent and he is nothing to do with the alleged offences. He is in judicial custody from 22.02.2025. Therefore prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that this case was registered as against the petitioner and others for the illegal transportation of 29.930 kgs of Ganja, which are commercial quantity. He would further submit that the petitioner has similar previous cases. Investigation is not yet completed. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

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

3/6

6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side, considering the fact that quantity of contraband involved in this case is a commercial quantity and investigation is not yet completed and the petitioner has similar previous cases, this Court is declined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7.

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

(P D B J) 24.03.2026 vsg 4/6

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Cumbum North Police Station Theni 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. 7817 of 2025 Date : 24.03.2026 6/6