Mahesh v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 15.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Mahesh

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Intelligence Officer Narcotics Central Bureau Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai.

(NCB F.No.48/1/21/2024/NCB MDS)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.Marar Iyer Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.C.Arulvadivel @ Sekar Special Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in NCB F.No.48/1/21/2024/NCB MDS on the file of the respondent police.

1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.11.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 28, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 in NCB F.No. 48/1/21/2024/NCB MDS on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that based on the secret information, on 13.11.2024 at about 12.00, when the respondent police were in surveillance, they found that A3 and one Balakrishnan were transporting ganja in a container bearing Reg.No.TN-88-J-2911 and delivering to A1 in a vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-66-AA-3305. On surveillance, they found that they were in illegal possession of 45 kgs of ganja. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.11.2024. He would further submit that no contraband was 2/5

recovered from this petitioner and based on the confession of co-accused, the petitioner has been arrayed as accused. He would further submit that one of the co-accused was released on statutory bail and the petitioner is also eligible for statutory bail. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the case has been registered under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 28, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 in NCB F.No.48/1/21/2024/NCB MDS. He would further submit that the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity and the petitioner has one previous case, which is similar in nature. He would further submit that the offences are grave in nature and hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel 3/5

on either side, nature of offence, and considering the fact that the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity and the petitioner has one previous case similar in nature, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Insofar as the statutory bail is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the same in accordance with law.

(P D B J) 15.04.2026 apd To 1.The Intelligence Officer Narcotics Central Bureau Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai.

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

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J apd

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 13557 of 2025 Date : 15.04.2026 5/5