Dismissed¶29

Hemnath Babu v. The State rep by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC8 Jun 2026CRL OP/10716/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL OP No.10716 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Madras, C.Kumarappan J., decided 08-06-2026. Bail application under Section 483 BNSS 2023 by Hemnath Babu for NDPS Act offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29(1) in Crime No.104 of 2025 (PEW Poonamallee P.S., Chennai); trial pending as C.C.No.1140 of 2025 before II Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of NDPS cases, Chennai. Recovery of 22 kg ganja held to be commercial quantity; media reports alleging 13 kg held irrelevant to bail consideration; no material found to overcome Section 37 NDPS Act rigour; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

A contention based on media reports cannot be gone into while considering the present bail application. ¶28

Hemnath Babu Vs The State rep by the Inspector of Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arrested and in judicial custody since 06.07.2025 for alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 in Crime No.104 of 2025, should be enlarged on bail in C.C.No.1140 of 2025 despite the recorded recovery of 22 kilograms of ganja (commercial quantity) and the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The recovery shown in the prosecution records is 22 kilograms of ganja, which is a commercial quantity.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

A contention based on media reports cannot be gone into while considering the present bail application.

¶28

Key takeaways

The Court found no material to overcome the rigour under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and was therefore not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused - NDPS commercial quantity (Madras HC, C.Kumarappan J., 08-06-2026). Hemnath Babu, arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.07.2025 for alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 in Crime No.104 of 2025 (PEW Poonamallee Police Station, Chennai), filed the instant Criminal Original Petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking enlargement on bail in C.C.No.1140 of 2025 pending before the II Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of NDPS cases at Chennai. The prosecution records showed a recovery of 22 kilograms of ganja, a commercial quantity; the Court held that contentions based on media reports (which, per petitioner's counsel, indicated a lesser quantity of 13 kilograms) cannot be gone into while considering a bail application, found no material to overcome the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and declined bail. The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed; the trial court listing stood at 09.06.2026 for appearance of the accused.

¶1

CRL OP No. 10716 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

CRL OP No. 10716 of 2026

Hemnath Babu

..Petitioner

The State rep by the Inspector of Police, PEW Poonamallee Police Station, Chennai, in Crime No.104 of 2025

¶11

..Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in C.C.No.1140 of 2025 arising out of Crime No.104 of 2025 on the file of the II Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of NDPS cases at Chennai with any stringent condition.

¶13

For Petitioner: Mr.L.Infant Dinesh For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.07.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, in Crime No.104 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶16

Page1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

CRL OP No. 10716 of 2026

¶19

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other

¶20

accused persons were found to be in possession of 22 kilograms of ganja. Hence the case.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 06.07.2025. It is further submitted that according to certain media reports, the quantity involved was stated to be only 13 kilograms. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case . He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the case is posted on 09.06.2026 for appearance of the accused and the recovery involved is 22 kilograms of ganja. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶23

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

¶24

Page2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

CRL OP No. 10716 of 2026

¶27

From the submission of the learned counsel on either side, this Court is

¶28

of the view that the contention based on media reports cannot be gone into while considering the present bail application. The recovery shown in the prosecution records is 22 kilograms of ganja, which is commercial quantity. This Court does not find any material to overcome the rigour under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Hence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶29