Dismissed¶27

Surya v. the State Rep by Its

Bail – NDPS Act

Madras HC11 Nov 2025CRL OP/16342/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (Justice K. Rajasekar) dismissed bail application Crl.O.P.No.16342 of 2025 filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 by Surya (A3) in Crime No.600 of 2024, Race Course Police Station, involving offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985; commercial quantity of ganja (20 kgs alleged, 20.200 kgs recovered per prosecution) and failure to satisfy twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act; decided 11.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Since the petitioner, along with the other accused, was found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband and failed to satisfy the twin conditions contemplated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. ¶23

Surya Vs the State Rep by Its — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.16342 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.16342 of 2025

¶7

Surya ...... Petitioner/A3 Vs. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Race Course Police Station ( L& O). (Crime No.600 of 2024) ... Respondent

¶8

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No.600 of 2024 pending on the file of the respondent Police.

¶9

For Petitioner : M/s.S.Vijay For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody

¶12

on 20.12.2024, for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No.600 of 2024, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

¶13

1/4

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.16342 of 2025

¶16

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was found in possession of 20 kgs of ganja. Hence, the case.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that,

¶18

petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reitereated the

¶20

prosecution case and submitted that there are totally 8 accused in this case and the petitioner is A3 and 20.200 kgs of ganja has recovered from the accused persons and they all were in concious possession of the contraband.

¶21

Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶22

Considering the fact that the petitioner along with other accused

¶23

were found in possession of commerical quantity and the petitioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions as contemplated under Section 37 of NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the eptitioner.

¶24

2/4

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.16342 of 2025

¶27