Natarajan v. The State rep by, The Inspector of Police
CRL OP/14986/2026 · 2026-07-09
C Kumarappan
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 49986 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 49986 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CRL OP No. 14986 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 14986 of 2026 Natarajan S/o.Thirunavukkarasu, No.14D, Ahimsa Puram, 8th Visalam, Sellur, Madurai District - 625 002. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep by, The Inspector of Police F1-Gummidipoondi Police Station, Tiruvallur District. (Crime No.284 of 2025) ..Respondent(s) Prayer
: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 483 of BNSS, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Crime No.284 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Prabakar For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.12.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 8(c) r/w 22(c) and 29(1) of NDPS Act 1985 in Crime No.284 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 14986 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 5
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.12.2025, the petitioner, along with other accused was found in possession of 56 grams of Methaphetamine, 25.5 grams of MDMA tablets and 0.37 grams of LSD stamps. Hence, this case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.12.2025. He further submitted that, though this is the case of commercial quantity, the recovery from the petitioner was only 4 grams of MDMA tablets, which falls within the intermediate quantity. According to him, the commercial quantity of contraband was recovered only from A1 and A6 and that there is no nexus between the petitioner and the other accused. He further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is employed in a private concern. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that all the accused were found together. He further submitted that there is a material to establish the money trail, that the petitioner had transferred a sum of Rs.38,000/- to A1 on 08.12.2025 from whom a commercial quantity of contraband was recovered.
According to the prosecution, the confession statement also reveals that the said amount was paid towards the purchase of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 14986 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 5 contraband, thereby establishing the petitioner’s conscious possession and involvement in the offence. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record. 6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that the quantity recovered from the petitioner is only an intermediate quantity, the point to be considered is whether there are prima facie materials to attribute the commercial quantity recovered from A1 to the conscious possession of the petitioner. In this regard, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) relied upon the money trial, that the petitioner had transferred a sum of Rs.38,000/- to A1 on 08.12.2025, apart from transfers of Rs.85,000/- to A4 and A5. Though no contraband was recovered from A4 and A5, the money trial between the petitioner and A1, from whom 56 grams of Methaphetamine, which falls under commercial quantity, was recovered, this Court is of the view that there are prima facie materials for conscious possession of such commercial quantity and accordingly, the rigorous under Section 37 of NDPS will attract. To overcome such rigour, there is no material. Hence, this court could not find any grounds to consider the bail application. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 14986 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 5
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 09-07-2026 DRL To 1.The Inspector of Police F1-Gummidipoondi Police Station, Tiruvallur District. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 14986 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 5 C.KUMARAPPAN, J. DRL CRL OP No. 14986 of 2026 09-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis