Martin Joshwa Thimothi Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Cr.No.311 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, K-2, Ayanavaram Police Station, Chennai.

¶12

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Balaji Sankara Moorthy For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.11.2024 for the alleged offences under Sections 8 (c) r/w 22 (C), and 29 (1)

¶15

of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.311 of 2024 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. 13572 of 2026

¶19

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

¶20

accused was found in illegal possession of 23 LSD stamps, 4.5 grams of Methamphetamine and 1 gram of OG cannabis. Hence the case.

¶21

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been in custody since 13.11.2024. He further submitted that the petitioner seeks parity with the co-accused. He further submitted that no progress has been made in the trial since 13.11.2024. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶22

4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that since A6 is still absconding, no break through could be achieved in the trial. He further contended that the petitioner cannot claim parity, as no violation of any statutory provision has been alleged or claimed by the petitioner. Hence, he opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶23

5.As rightly submitted by the learned Government Advocate, this Court cannot not find any grounds to extend the benefit of parity. However, while looking into the bail applications of the co-accused reveals that they were enlarged on bail for non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which is not the case for the petitioner. Parity must be considered based on the specific

¶24

Page2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

CRL OP No. 13572 of 2026

¶27

factual position of the individual cases. Furthermore, since this case involves a commercial quantity of contraband and based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court cannot find any grounds to overcome the rigor under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶28

06-07-2026

¶29

ep

¶30

__________ Page3 of 4

¶31

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

¶32

CRL OP No. 13572 of 2026

¶33

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.