Sarathkumar @ Sarath 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 Sarathkumar @ Sarath

...Petitioner/Accused No.7

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station Thoothukudi District.

(Crime No. 119 of 2024)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner :Ms.K.Kavitha Advocate.

For Respondent :Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Crime No.119 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.

1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b) (ii)(C) and 25 of NDPS Act, in Cr. No.119 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.03.2024, at about 11.20 a.m., during routine vehicle check up conducted for the 2024 parliamentary election at ThoothukudiThiruchendur Road, the respondent Police found that the petitioner and other accused persons were in illegal possession of 20.600 kgs of Ganja in their car bearing Registration no.TN 23 BC 7603. 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

The petitioner is an innocent and he is nothing to do with the alleged offences. Therefore prayed to grant anticipatory 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 20.600 kgs of Ganja, which are commercial quantity. He would further submit that the petitioner has similar previous cases. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory 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 3/6

quantity of contraband involved in this case is a commercial quantity and the petitioner has similar previous cases, this Court is declined to grant anticipatory 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, Arumuganeri Police Station Thoothukudi 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. 9220 of 2025 Date : 24.03.2026 6/6