Subramani v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL CRL OP(MD)No.13747 of 2025 Subramani ... Petitioner / Accused No.1

Versus

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, PEW Dindigul Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.695 of 2024) ... Respondent / Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.695 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.C.Senthil Murugan For Respondent :

Mr.B.Nambi Selvan, Additional Public Prosecutor 1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.05.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in Crime No.695 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.05.2024, at about 02.30 a.m., during a routine check, the respondent police intercepted an auto and found the accused persons in possession of 30 kgs of ganja. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that there are no previous cases against the petitioner. He would also submit that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.05.2024. Hence, he seeks grant of bail for the petitioner. 2/5

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that there are totally 9 accused persons in this case and the petitioner has been arrayed as A1. He would further submit that the petitioner has 2 previous cases, out of which, one case in similar nature. He would also submit that the contraband involved in the case falls under the category of commercial quantity. Therefore, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the nature and gravity of the offence, the fact that the contraband involved in this case is of commercial quantity, and that the accused was in conscious possession of the same, and further considering that the petitioner has 2 previous cases including one of a similar nature, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

17.04.2026 pal 3/5

To 1.The Inspector of Police, PEW Dindigul Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

4/5

P.DHANABAL ,J.

pal

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.13747 of 2025 Date : 17.04.2026 5/5