Jeyakumar @ Jk v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Andipatti

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Jeyakumar @ JK

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Andipatti Police Station, Theni.

(Crime No. 19 of 2023 )

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Vivek Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 19 of 2023 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 12.07.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No. 19 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that based on the secret information, on 16.01.2023 at about 6.30 hrs, when the respondent police were in patrol duty, they found that the petitioner and other accused were in illegal joint possession of 1200 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 no contraband was recovered from this petitioner and based on the confession only, the petitioner has been arrayed as accused. He would further submit that A9, A17 and A18 were granted bail by this court. He would further submit that he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.07.2023. Therefore, 2/5

prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner and other accused were in illegal joint possession of 1200 kgs of ganja, due to which the case has been registered under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No. 19 of 2023. He would further submit that the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity and the petitioner has some previous cases similar in nature and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the trial court. 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 on either side, nature of offence, and considering the facts that the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity and the petitioner 3/5

is having some previous cases, which are similar in nature and thereby, failed to comply with the Section 37 of NDPS Act and taking into considering the gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. However, considering the long pendency of the case, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible without granting any long adjournments beyond one week and if the Presiding Officer is not available, in-charge has to conduct trial by following the above said directions.

(P D B J) 16.04.2026 apd To 1.The Principal Special Judge for trial of NDPS Act cases, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Andipatti Police Station, Theni.

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

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J apd

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 19498 of 2025 Date : 16.04.2026 5/5