Muniyasamy v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Kumuli

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.Muniyasamy 2.Balasubramaniyan

...Petitioners/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kumuli Police Station, Theni.

(Crime No. 29 of 2026 )

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Vetrivel Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 29 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. 1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / Accused, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c), 29(1) and 25 of NDPS Act in Crime No. 29 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that based on the secret information, on 14.02.2026, at about 8.00 hrs, when the respondent police were in patrol duty, they found that the petitioners and other accused were in illegal joint possession of 34.950 kgs of ganja. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that they have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.02.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioners.

2/5

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioners and other accused were in illegal joint possession of 34.950 kgs of ganja, due to which the case has been registered under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c), 29(1) and 25 of NDPS Act in Crime No. 29 of 2026. He would further submit that the first petitioner has 10 previous cases. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

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 involved is a commercial quantity and the first petitioner has some previous cases, which are similar in nature and also the investigation is at initial stage and taking into considering the gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. 3/5

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. (P D B J) 22.06.2026 apd To 1.The Inspector of Police, Kumuli Police Station, Theni.

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

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J apd

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 8616 of 2026 Date : 22.06.2026 5/5