Dismissed¶31

Ibrahim v. The State Rep by

Madras HC20 Jan 2026CRL OP/757/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, CRL OP No.757 of 2026 (decided 20-01-2026, Justice K. Rajasekar): anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS 2023 refused for alleged receipt of 700 grams of (OG) ganja in Crime No.383 of 2025, Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) NDPS Act; likelihood of repetition of offences and interference with pending investigation; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the FIR and other connected materials, the Court found that the petitioner is alleged to have been involved in receiving 700 grams of (OG) ganja and that the investigation is pending. ¶29

Ibrahim Vs The State Rep by — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20-01-2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶5

CRL OP NO.757 of 2026

Ibrahim

Petitioner(s)

The State Represented by The Inspector of Police B1 North Beach Police Station, Chennai – 600 001. Crime No.383 of 2025

¶10

Respondent(s)

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.383 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner(s):

¶13

Mr.S.Kishore

¶14

For Respondent(s):

¶15

Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest by the respondent police for

¶20

the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of

¶21

NDPS Act, in Crime No.383 of 202 5 registered on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶22

2. The case of the prosecution is that, based on prior information, the respondent police intercepted a car driven by A1 on 29.12.2025, from whom 1.200 grams of ganja was recovered. Subsequently, on the very same day, A2 was also intercepted and 1.100 grams of ganja was recovered from him. The statements recorded from them revealed that some portion of the ganja was handed to the petitioner herein. Based on the statements of A1 and A2, both the accused were arrested. However, the petitioner was absconding. Hence, the case has been registered.

¶23

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been added as an accused purely on transfer and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶24

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that a total

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

quantity of 2.300 grams of (OG) ganja was recovered and that another 700 grams of (OG) ganja was handed over to the petitioner. He further submitted that the investigation is still pending and that the allegation is not a false case of transportation of ganja. He further submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to indulge in similar offence and hamper the investigation. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶28

5. This Court on perusal of the FIR and other connected materials,

¶29

finds that the petitioner is alleged to have been involved in receiving 700 grams of (OG) ganja and that the investigation is pending.

¶30

6. Considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the petitioner is alleged to have been involved in the transportation and possession of ganja, this Court is of the view that, if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to indulge in similar offences and may hamper the investigation. Therefore this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶31

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

20-01-2026

drl

Page 3 of 5

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

¶36

¶37