Dismissed¶36

Nithin v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Pew-Nagarcoil

Bail refused – NDPS

Madras HC8 Apr 2026CRL OP(MD)/5746/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail dismissed; Sec.483 BNSS petition; 11 grams MDMA; commercial quantity; investigation not completed; Crime No.126 of 2025; PEW Nagercoil Police Station; Kanniyakumari District; petitioner stated to be A2 of two accused; Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5746 of 2026; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Justice P. Dhanabal; order dated 08.04.2026; no precedents cited; no monetary quantum involved (only contraband weight).

What did the court decide?

Considering the rival submissions, the Court declined to grant bail to the petitioner at that stage because the quantity of contraband involved in the case is commercial quantity and the investigation is not yet completed. ¶35

Nithin Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5746 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 08.04.2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No. 5746 of 2026

Nithin

... Petitioner

State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, PEW Nagercoil Police Station, Kanniyakumari District. (Crime No.126 of 2025)

¶12

...Respondent/Complainant

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sonu

¶14

Advocate.

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan

¶16

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶17

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS

¶18

PRAYER :-

¶19

For Bail in Cr.No. 126 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

¶20

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶21

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

¶22

11.11.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.126 of 2025 on the file of the respondent

¶23

1/4

¶24

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

¶25

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5746 of 2026

¶26

police, seeks bail.

¶27

2.The case of the prosecution is that 11.11.2025 at about 7.15 a.m., on the basis of a secret information, the police officials went to the spot and found the accused along with other accused persons in possession of 11 grams of contraband namely MDMA. On seeing the police officials they ran away from the scene of occurrence. Hence, the case.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not involved in any offence as alleged in the FIR. He is in no way connected with the occurrence. Without stating anything to the petitioner the respondent police only obtained the signature from him and roped him in this case. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

¶29

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence is grave in nature. The accused is in possession of 11 grams of MDMA, which is commercial quantity. Totally two accused in this case. The petitioner is A2. Investigation is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶30

2/4

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5746 of 2026

¶33

This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on

¶34

record.

¶35

Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, that the quantity of contraband involved in this case is commercial quantity and that investigation is not yet completed, this Court is declined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶36