Peengan @ Prasath v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thanjavur Taluk

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

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by The Inspector of Police Thanjavur Taluk Police Station Thanjavur District Crime No.760 of 2025

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Veerapandiselvaraj For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambiselvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No. 760 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. 1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.11.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii) (B), 22(c) of NDPS Act and 25(1-A) of Arms Act in Crime No.760 of 2025 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 1.475kgs of ganja and Diazepam powder. 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 09.11.2025. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner. 2/5

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner along with other accused were found in illegal possession of 1.475kgs of ganja and Diazepam powder 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 that the petitioner also travelled in the vehicle in which the contraband was transported and though the petitioner has no previous cases for similar kind of offences however five previous cases under IPC are pending against the petitioner and also considering the gravity of offence, 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 Inspector of Police Thanjavur Taluk Police Station Thanjavur District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J aav

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 21801 of 2025 Date : 17.04.2026 5/5