Dismissed¶25

Sujith v. State rep.by

Madras HC23 Mar 2026CRL OP/7191/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail denied; Section 482 BNSS; NDPS Act 1985 Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25, 29(1); ganja 6.150 kgs recovered; Crime No.148 of 2025; PEW-Thiruchengode Police Station, Namakkal District; petitioner Sujith; four previous cases, habitual offending; misuse of earlier bail liberty granted by the Court; not a fit case for pre-arrest bail; Criminal Original Petition dismissed; CRL OP No. 7191 of 2026; C.Kumarappan, J.; High Court of Judicature at Madras; decision dated 23-03-2026.

What did the court decide?

The Court held that, from the Government Advocate's submissions, it was clear (pellucid) that the petitioner had misused the liberty earlier granted by this Court, and that therefore this was not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail; accordingly the Criminal Original Petition was dismissed. ¶25

Sujith Vs State rep.by — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 7191 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 7191 of 2026

Sujith

..Petitioner(s)

State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, PEW-Thiruchengode Police Station, Namakkal District. Cr.No.148 of 2025.

¶10

..Respondent(s)

¶11

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest by the respondent police, pending investigation of the case in Cr.No.148 of 2025 on the file of the respondent.

¶12

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Vijayaragavan For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 8

¶15

(c), 20 (b) (ii) (B), 25 and 29 (1) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in Crime No.148 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

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

¶17

accused were found in illegal possession of 6.150 kgs of Ganja. Hence, the case.

¶18

Page1 of 2

¶19

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

¶20

CRL OP No. 7191 of 2026

¶21

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is

¶22

innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and that he is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶23

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submits that

¶24

6.150 kgs of ganja was recovered from the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner has four previous cases and has been regularly doing similar nature of offences. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶25

5.From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), it is pellucid that the petitioner has misused the liberty which had been granted by this Court in earlier point of time. Hence, this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed.

¶26

23-03-2026

¶27

ep To

¶28

1.The Inspector of Police, PEW-Thiruchengode Police Station, Namakkal District. 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

¶29

CRL OP No. 7191 of 2026

¶30

__________ Page2 of 2

¶31

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