M. Broosly v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Eruvadi

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 19454 of 2025 M.Broosly ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Eruvadi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.357 of 2025)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Micheal Sebastin Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambiselvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 357 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.02.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.357 of 2025, on the file of the respondent 1/4

police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.02.2025 at about 4.20 p.m., when the respondent police went on surveillance, they found that the petitioner along with other accused persons are in possession of 114 kgs. of Ganja in 55 gunny bags. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent person and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is in no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The recovery was not made from him. The DGP issued circular in (HoPF) in Rc.No.187539/Crime 4(3)/2015, dated 23.06.2022. For this much of quantity, as per the above said circular, the respondent police transferred the case to NIB-CID. But they did not do so. Hence, he prays to grant Bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocat (Crl. Side) would submit that the offence is grave in nature. The quantity involved in this case is commercial quantity and the same was recovered from this petitioner. The petitioner also having two previous cases for similar king of offence. 2/4

5. Considering the rival submissions made on either side, considering the nature of allegation, the quantity involved is commercial quantity and the petitioner is also having previous cases similar in nature, though the learned counsel for the petitioner referred the circular issued by the DGP, the said circular cannot have the legal sanctity, that is only issued for Administrative Purpose, it is not the ground to consider the bail application of the petitioner, I am declined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. (P D B J) 16.04.2026 TM To 1.The Inspector of Police, Eruvadi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.357 of 2025) 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

3/4

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 19454 of 2025 Date : 16.04.2026 4/4