Dismissed¶34

Raju v. State rep. by The Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Jun 2026CRL OP/10043/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refused under Section 483 BNSS in NDPS Act case (ganja, Cr. No.1271/2025, Palladam P.S., Tiruppur); consolidated recovery across co-accused treated as commercial quantity question left unexamined at bail stage; individual recovery 4.080 kgs vs total 46.56 kgs; adverse antecedents — eight prior cases, two similar (Cr. Nos.289/2023 and 725/2019); CRL OP No.10043 of 2026, decided 05-06-2026.

What did the court decide?

At the stage of considering the bail application, the Court will not examine whether the consolidation of recoveries from co-accused is in order, since according to the prosecution there are materials to connect all the accused. ¶30

Raju Vs State rep. by The Inspector of Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner (stated to be A1 among about nine accused), arrested and remanded for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act in Crime No.1271 of 2025, is entitled to be enlarged on bail pending investigation. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Having regard to the petitioner's eight previous cases, almost all serious in nature, of which two (Cr. Nos.289/2023 on the file of the respondent police and 725/2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Tiruppur South Police Station) are similar in nature, the Court holds the petitioner is not entitled to bail and declines to enlarge him on bail.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (C. Kumarappan J., author), CRL OP No.10043 of 2026, decided 05-06-2026: Bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. by Raju (stated to be A1 among about nine accused), arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.12.2025 in Cr. No.1271/2025 of Palladam Police Station, Tiruppur District, for alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act, following a search at Palladam Bus Stand on 22.12.2025 yielding 46.56 kgs of ganja. Counsel for the petitioner argued that only 4.080 kgs was recovered from him and that consolidating it with co-accused recoveries to constitute a commercial quantity was impermissible; the Government Advocate opposed, citing consolidated recovery of 46.56 kgs and eight previous cases against the petitioner. The Court held that the question of consolidation cannot be gone into at the bail stage since the prosecution claims materials connecting all the accused; noting that almost all previous cases are serious and two (Cr. Nos.289/2023, Palladam P.S.; 725/2019, Tiruppur South P.S.) are similar in nature, it declined bail and dismissed the Criminal Original Petition.

¶1

CRL OP No.10043 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

CRL OP No. 10043 of 2026

¶7

Raju S/o Chinnadurai, 24, Panappalayam, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District. Now residing at, 3/24, Chennaimalai Gounder Street, Trichy Road, Panapalayam, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

State represented by:

¶11

The Inspector of Police Palladam Police Station, Tiruppur District. (Crime No.1271/2025).

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.1271 of 2025 on

¶14

the file of the respondent police, pending investigation.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): M/S. N.Ponraj For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.12.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C)

¶18

Page1 of 5

¶19

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

¶20

CRL OP No.10043 of 2026

¶21

and 29 of NDPS Act in Cr. No.1271/2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that based on a secret information with regard to the illegal transportation of Ganja, on 22.12.2025, when the respondent police went to the spot i.e., Palladam Bus Stand and conducted a search, found the accused in the illegal possession of 46.56 kgs of Ganja and hence the case.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been remanded to judicial custody on 23.12.2025 and there are about 9 accused totally and the petitioner herein is A1. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that though there are total recovery of 46.56 kgs of Ganja, even according to the prosecution, only 4.080 kgs of Ganja was recovered from the present petitioner and the respondent police cannot consolidate this recovery of 4.080 kgs of Ganja along with the recovery from other accused so as to make it as a commercial quantity and hence prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶24

However, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police would strongly oppose the above said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that there are evidences to

¶25

Page2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

CRL OP No.10043 of 2026

¶28

show that the accused have transported Ganja in consort and therefore, the recovery can be consolidated and in this case, the total recovery from the accused is 46.56 kgs of Ganja and therefore, the same would be a commercial quantity. Apart from the above, the learned Government Advocate would also submit that the petitioner has 8 other previous cases, among which, 2 cases are similar in nature and therefore, he strongly objected the bail application.

¶29

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶30

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that consolidation should not be done, in the case on hand, according to the prosecution, there are materials to connect all the accused. Therefore, whether the consolidation is in order or not, cannot be gone into at this stage, while considering the bail application. Apart from that, the petitioner has 8 other previous cases and out of which, almost all the cases are serious in nature and two cases in Cr. Nos.289/2023 on the file of the respondent police and 725/2019 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Tirupppur South Police Station, are similar in nature. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner is not entitled to get bail and this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶31

__________ Page3 of 5

¶32

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

¶33

CRL OP No.10043 of 2026

¶34

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

05-06-2026

MJS

Note:

Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

¶39

All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

¶40

¶41