Dismissed¶29

Manoj v. State, represented by, The Inspector of Police

Bail – NDPS Act 1985, Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 29(1), 25

Madras HC27 Jul 2026CRL OP/20061/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (single judge, C.Kumarappan J., 27-07-2026) dismisses CRL OP No. 20061 of 2026, a bail application under S.483 BNSS 2023 by Manoj, arrested 15.06.2026 under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 29(1), 25 NDPS Act 1985 in Crime No.186 of 2026 (Avadi Police, ganja recovery case); bail refused as premature in view of pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Considering the facts and circumstances, the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the totality of the circumstances and the pendency of the investigation, the Court held it too premature to consider the bail application at this stage and declined to grant bail. ¶28

Manoj Vs State, represented by, The Inspector of Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 20061 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

CRL OP No. 20061 of 2026

Manoj

..Petitioner

State, represented by, The Inspector of Police, T-6, Avadi Police Station, Tiruvallur District. Crime No.186 of 2026

¶11

..Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.186 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

¶13

For Petitioner:	Mr.M.Shimiyon Edwin
For Respondent:	Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar
	Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu
	(Criminal Side)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.06.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 29(1), 25

¶16

of NDPS Act 1985 in Crime No.186 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶17

Page1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

CRL OP No. 20061 of 2026

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused person were found to be in possession of 38 kg of ganja. Hence, the case.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no recovery from this petitioner and the petitioner has been incarcerated since 15.06.2026. He further submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner.

¶22

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and objected the bail application on the ground that there are about 8 accused and this petitioner is arrayed as A7 and the total recovery is 101.5 kg of ganja and further the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner.

¶23

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶24

Page2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

CRL OP No. 20061 of 2026

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side); considering

¶28

the totality of the circumstances, and considering the pendency of the investigation, this Court is of the firm view that it is too premature to consider the bail application at this stage. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶29