CRL O.P. No.813 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 24.02.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL O.P. No.813 of 2025 1.V.Mohanraj 2.G.Senthilnathan 3.V.Balamurugan ... Petitioners / Accused Versus The State represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, NIB-CID, Kancheepuram. [F.I.R.No.23 of 2024 dated 18.10.2024] ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.23 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr. J. Prakasam. For Respondent : Mr. Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Government Advocate (Crl. Side). 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.813 of 2025 O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.10.2024, seeking bail in Crime No.23 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 29(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with A2 had been transporting 200 kgs of Ganja and on secret information, they were intercepted and 50 packets each containing 2 kgs was seized from the vehicle which was driven by A2 viz., Force Trax; that the petitioners had followed the said vehicle by travelling in a Honda Amaze car and that all the accused were arrested at the same time and their confession revealed their involvement. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the contraband was placed in the force trax vehicle and the petitioners who are A1, A3 and A4 were not found in possession of any contraband and there is no previous case against the petitioners and the allegations are 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.813 of 2025 false. He further submitted that the petitioners are in custody from 18.10.2024 and they are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and since further custody is not required, the petitioners may be released on bail. 4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) reiterated the averments in the FIR which shows that both the vehicles were seized on the same time. Though the contraband was found in force trax and the petitioners were travelled in Honda car, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be applicable and hence, opposed for grant of bail. 5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record. 6.Though the petitioners had travelled in another vehicle, and A2 had travelled in force trax in which the contraband was found, it is seen that all the accused were arrested at the same time and hence, rigors of 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.813 of 2025 Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be applicable. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 24.02.2025 ay To 1.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, NIB-CID, Kancheepuram. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL O.P. No.813 of 2025 SUNDER MOHAN. J, ay CRL O.P. No.813 of 2025 24.02.2025 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis