Nanghilraja v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 21/04/2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Nanghilraja ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep By, The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi NIBCID Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

( In Crime No.11 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.11 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : S.Micheal Heldon Kumar, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner / A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial 1/4

custody on 30.07.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.11 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner on 29.07.2025, at about 15.00 hours, on secret information, the respondent police went to the near the S.K.P.Shanmuga Work Shop at Thoothukudi-Vaippar Main Road, and they found a lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-72-CH-0204 along with the petitioner and on search, found the petitioner was in illegal possession of 240 kg 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 the petitioner is only driver of the vehicle and he had no knowledge about the contraband and he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.07.2025. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground 2/4

that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 240 kg of ganja and it is a commercial quantity and the investigation is still pending. Hence, 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 on either side, nature of offence, and the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity and according to the prosecution, contraband was recovered from the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, at this stage.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. (P D B J) 21.04.2026 dss 3/4

P. DHANABAL,J dss To 1.The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi NIBCID Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.17654 of 2025 Date : 21/04/2026 4/4