Dismissed¶27

Yasir v. The State Rep By

Madras HC8 Jun 2026CRL OP/10913/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court CRL OP No. 10913 of 2026 (decided 08-06-2026) by C.Kumarappan J.: bail application under S.483 BNSS 2023 dismissed; NDPS Act Ss.8(c), 22(c), 29(1) r/w BNS 2023 Ss.3(5), 111; Crime No. 19/2026, Virinchipuram PS, Vellore; petitioner A5 in custody from 02.02.2026; no recovery from petitioner, implication via co-accused A1's confession; 150 grams Methamphetamine (60g + 90g) = commercial quantity; rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act not overcome at investigation stage; bail refused.

What did the court decide?

Though no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, he has been arrayed as an accused based on the materials collected during investigation. ¶26

Yasir Vs The State Rep By — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 10913 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 CRL OP No. 10913 of 2026

Yasir

..Petitioner

State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Virinchipuram Police Station, Vellore District. (Crime No. 19/2026)

¶10

..Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Crime No. 19 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the Inspector of Police, Virinchipuram Police Station, Vellore District.

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.02.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 r/w 3(5) and 111 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.19 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶15

Page1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

CRL OP No. 10913 of 2026

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that on 02.02.2026, the respondent police apprehended A1 and another accused and recovered 60 grams of Methamphetamine. Based on the confession of A1, other accused were arrested and a further quantity of 90 grams of Methamphetamine was recovered. The present petitioner has been arrayed as A5.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that no contraband was recovered from the petitioner and he has been implicated only based upon the confession of the co-accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 02.02.2026. 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.

¶20

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the total recovery in the case is 150 grams of Methamphetamine, which constitutes commercial quantity. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶21

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

¶22

Page2 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

CRL OP No. 10913 of 2026

¶25

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

¶26

of the view that though no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, he has been arrayed as an accused based on the materials collected during investigation. Considering the present stage of investigation and the fact that the case involves commercial quantity, this Court is of the firm view that this is not an appropriate stage to enlarge the petitioner on bail and this Court does not find any material to overcome the rigour under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶27