Harri Indra Pavan @ Karri Indhira Bhavan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Nib - Cid

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD) NO. 20564 of 2025 Karri Indra Pavan @ Karri Indhira Bhavan Petitioner(s) Vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By the Inspector Of Police, NIB - CID Madurai.

(In Crime No.05/2025) Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Vignesh For Respondent(s): Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor Prayer:

C-32 B. For Bail in Crime No.05/2025 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER

The petitioner/Accused No.2 , who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.07.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.5 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was in possession of 25.115 kg of ganja. Hence, this case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

However, he has been arrested and he is languishing in jail from 03.07.2025. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police opposed for grant of bail on the ground that the investigation is still pending. 5.The learned appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is a HIV patient, therefore he should be considered for granting bail. 6.This Court is of the considered opinion that HIV patient can be treated and there is no harm in directing them to stay in jail.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent further submitted that the petitioner is being taken care of and he is taking tablets regularly. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 8.The next contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not have consious possession of the contra band.

9.But on perusal of the FIR, it is seen that A1 and A2 were carrying two bags and both of them were caught hold of by the respondent. Therefore, it is conscious possession.

10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and

gravity of the offence and the specific overt act against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 23-01-2026 Tmg To 1.Inspector Of Police, NIB - CID Madurai.

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