CRL OP(MD). No.12627 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD)No.12627 of 2026 Sasikumar ... Petitioner / Accused No.4 Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, NIB-CID Ramnad Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.7 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.7 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, or on his appearance. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Gowtham For Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, Counsel for State of TN (Criminal Side) 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.12627 of 2026 ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.7 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is arrayed as A4. It is alleged that the petitioner procured 180 kilograms of ganja from Andhra Pradesh and transported the same to Ramanathapuram District in a Bolero pick-up vehicle. After reaching Kuyavankudi Murugan Temple, the petitioner allegedly contacted A1 over phone, informed him about the arrival of the contraband, and instructed him to ensure its safe transportation to Vedhalai North Beach. Accordingly, with the assistance of A2, the movements of the police were monitored, and, acting on the instructions of the petitioner, A1, A2, A3 and A5 manually transported the contraband to Vedhalai North Beach, where it was buried and kept concealed awaiting further instructions from the petitioner. Subsequently, on 10.05.2025, between 1.40 p.m. and 3.45 p.m., the accused assembled 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.12627 of 2026 near the seashore for the purpose of transporting the contraband to Sri Lanka by boat. At that stage, the respondent Police intercepted the accused and seized the contraband. During the course of investigation, after the arrest of A1, A2, A3 and A5, their statements were recorded, wherein they disclosed that the petitioner had transported the contraband from Andhra Pradesh to Ramanathapuram District. The investigation further revealed that there were frequent telephonic communications between the petitioner and the other accused during the relevant period. The respondent Police also collected the Call Detail Records, tower location details and other electronic evidence, which prima facie indicate continuous contact between the petitioner and the co-accused at the time of procurement, transportation, concealment and the proposed smuggling of the contraband. Hence, the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co- accused, who were allegedly involved in the transportation of the contraband, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. He further submitted that, except the Call Detail Records and the alleged telephonic conversations, there is no independent incriminating material connecting 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.12627 of 2026 the petitioner with the alleged offence. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in Bail Application No.194 of 2025, dated 29.04.2026, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for State (Criminal Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the investigation has revealed, through the Call Detail Records, tower location details and other electronic evidence, that the petitioner had actively participated in procuring and transporting 180 kilograms of ganja from Andhra Pradesh to Ramanathapuram District with the ultimate object of smuggling the contraband to Sri Lanka. He further submitted that the petitioner has not yet been arrested and that the present case involves a commercial quantity of contraband. It was also pointed out that the petitioner is involved in another case in Crime No.100 of 2025 on the file of Uchipuli Police Station relating to the transportation of 30 kilograms of ganja, besides two other criminal cases. Therefore, if anticipatory bail is granted, there is every likelihood of the petitioner indulging in similar offences. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.12627 of 2026 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution relies only upon the Call Detail Records and the statements of the co-accused, this Court finds that the Call Detail Records prima facie disclose frequent telephonic communications between the petitioner and A1 to A5 during the crucial period when the contraband was allegedly transported, concealed and arranged for onward smuggling to Sri Lanka. These materials, at this stage, prima facie indicate the petitioner's involvement in the alleged conspiracy. It is true that the evidentiary value of the statements of the co-accused will have to be tested during trial. However, at the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, this Court is only required to examine whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is involved in the alleged offence. 7. The contraband involved in the present case is of commercial quantity. Therefore, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act squarely 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.12627 of 2026 applies. Before granting bail, this Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Having regard to the materials collected during the investigation, including the Call Detail Records and other electronic evidence, the allegation that the petitioner played a key role in the interstate procurement and proposed international trafficking of 180 kilograms of ganja from Andhra Pradesh to Sri Lanka, and the fact that the petitioner is also involved in another NDPS case relating to the transportation of 30 kilograms of ganja, this Court is not satisfied that the twin conditions contemplated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act have been fulfilled. In particular, this Court is not satisfied that the petitioner, if enlarged on anticipatory bail, is not likely to indulge in similar offences. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 20.07.2026 pal 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.12627 of 2026 To 1.The Inspector of Police, NIB-CID Ramnad Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP(MD). No.12627 of 2026 K. RAJASEKAR ,J. pal ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12627 of 2026 Date : 20.07.2026 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis