Dismissed¶30

Baskar v. State rep by, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Mar 2026CRL OP/7341/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

anticipatory bail denied; Section 482 BNSS 2023; NDPS Act 1985 Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 29(1); ganja 1.100 kgs; Crime No. 39 of 2026; Deevattipatti Police Station Salem; petitioner Baskar; implication via co-accused confession statement; petition dismissed; High Court of Judicature at Madras; C.Kumarappan J.; 24-03-2026.

What did the court decide?

Taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner, the Court was of the firm view that the petitioner does not deserve the grant of anticipatory bail. ¶26

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

¶1

CRL OP No. 7341 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

CRL OP No. 7341 of 2026

¶7

Baskar

¶8

S/o Alaguraja, No.13/46, Nachinampatti Colony, Nachinampatti, Theevattipatti, Salem-636 351

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

State rep by, The Inspector of Police, Deevattipatti Police Station, Salem. (Crime No. 39 of 2026).

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to grant Anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in the event of arrest by the Respondent Police in Crime No. 39 of 2026 (on the file of Respondent Police) pending investigation of this case and thus render Justice.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): S. Sudhanthiran For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in Crime No.39 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks

¶17

Page1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

CRL OP No. 7341 of 2026

¶20

anticipatory bail.

¶21

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found to be in

¶22

illegal possession of 1.100 kgs of ganja. Hence, the complaint.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has no connection with the alleged offence and that he has been implicated in this case solely on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶24

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) strongly opposed the application and submitted that the case involves narcotic substances and that the petitioner was found in possession of 1.100 kgs of ganja. He further submitted that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it may embolden him to indulge in similar activities.

¶25

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

¶26

6. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner does not deserve the

¶27

Page2 of 4

¶28

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

¶29

CRL OP No. 7341 of 2026

¶30

grant of anticipatory bail. If anticipatory bail is granted, it would jeopardize the prosecution case. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶31

24-03-2026

¶32

MPA