M.Balakrishnan v. Union Of India,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL M.Balakrishnan

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs The Union of India Junior Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Contral Bureau, Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai NCB F.No.48/1/2022/2024/NCB/MDS

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Ms.V.T.Harshini For Respondent : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar Special Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in NCB F.No.48/1/2022/2024/NCB/MDS on the file of the respondent police.

1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / A2, 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 and 29 of NDPS Act in F.No.48/1/2022/2024/NCB/MDS on the file of the respondent seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused were found in illegal possession of 45kgs of ganja. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent police has registered a false case against the petitioner and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that no previous case is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.11.2024. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner. 2/5

4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner along with other accused were found in illegal possession of 45kgs of ganja which is a commercial quantity. There are materials available as against the petitioner. Hence, he 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, and considering the facts that the quantity of contraband involved in this case is commercial quantity and considering the fact this Court already dismissed the bail application filed by the co-accused and also considering the fact that the petitioner also travelled in the vehicle in which the contraband was transported, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

3/5

7. Hence the petition stands dismissed.

(P D B J) 17.04.2026 aav To 1.The Union of India Junior Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Contral Bureau, Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J aav

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 20615 of 2025 Date : 17.04.2026 5/5