HARIKRISHNA Vs State reb by

Harikrishna vs State reb by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Jan 27, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1413156

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1413156
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Jan 27, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/1659/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Harikrishna

Respondent

State reb by

Excerpt

.....be imposed by this court. hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.4. per contra, the learned government advocate (criminal side)appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. he further submitted that the vehicle used for the illegal transportation of 100 kilograms of ganja and the contraband were seized and that the petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions contemplated under sectioin 37 of ndps act. he also submitted that the investigation is still pending.5. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government advocate (crl side) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.6. this being the second application for anticipatory bail, and takinginto consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature and gravity of offence committed by the petitioner, this court finds no change in circumstances warranting the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. therefore, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.7. accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. klt to1. the additional district & special court, salem.2. the inspector of police, krishnagiri pew police station, krishnagiri district.3. the public prosecutor, high court of madras, chennai. k.rajasekar j. klt

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1. Harikrishna S/o.Marappa, No. 1-90 Kadapalli Village, Karlakatta Post, Santhipuram Taluk, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State reb by Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri PEW Police station, Krishnagiri District Crime No. 458/2025. Respondent(s) PRAYER

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail as against the case pending on the file of the respondent police in Crime No.458 of 2025. For Petitioner(s): Mr. D.Thirumoorthy Mr. D.Rameshkumar For Respondent(s): Mr. A. Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.09.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (NDPS) 1985, in Crime No.207 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was found in

possession of 100 kilograms of Ganja and had transported the same in a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No.AP-02-BA-4782 for illegal sale. Hence, the present complaint has been registered against him.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 25.09.2025 and he is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that the vehicle used for the illegal transportation of 100 kilograms of Ganja and the contraband were seized and that the petitioner has not satisfied the twin conditions contemplated under Sectioin 37 of NDPS Act. He also submitted that the investigation is still pending.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl Side) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

6. This being the second application for anticipatory bail, and taking

into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature and gravity of offence committed by the petitioner, this Court finds no change in circumstances warranting the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. klt To

1. The Additional District & Special Court, Salem.

2. The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri PEW Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. K.RAJASEKAR J. klt

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Harikrishna vs State reb by Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar