PANDIYAN Vs The Inspector of Police

Pandiyan vs The Inspector of Police

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Mar 02, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1426367

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/1426367
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan
Decided On: Mar 02, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/5254/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pandiyan

Respondent

The Inspector of Police

Excerpt

.....hence, the case.3. the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitionersare innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. he further submitted that the petitioners are the driver and owner of the vehicle and, therefore, the recovery cannot be attributed to them. he also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this court and undertake not to tamper with the witnesses. hence, he prayed for grant of bail.4. the learned government advocate (crl. side) reiterated theprosecution case and submitted that the quantity of ganja seized from the petitioners is 21 kgs, which constitutes commercial quantity. hence, he opposed the grant of bail.5. considering that the commercial quantity of contraband seized from the petitioners and that the petitioners and the other accused had travelled together, it would fall within the rigour of section 37(1)(b) of the ndps act.hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. further, there is no change in circumstances from the earlier rejection of bail. hence, this court is not inclined to entertain the same.6. accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. nvi to 1.the inspector of police, 2.the public prosecutor, high court of madras. c.kumarappan,j., nvi

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.Pandiyan 2.Ranjith ... Petitioners/A1&A2 Vs. The Inspector of Police, (Crime No.393 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.393 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent. For Petitioners : Mr.T.Balachandran For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.09.2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii) (c), 29(1), 25 of NDPS Act 1985, in Crime No.393 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they, along with other accused, were found in possession of 21kgs of ganja. Hence, the case.

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

are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are the driver and owner of the vehicle and, therefore, the recovery cannot be attributed to them. He also submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court and undertake not to tamper with the witnesses. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the

prosecution case and submitted that the quantity of ganja seized from the petitioners is 21 kgs, which constitutes commercial quantity. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail.

5. Considering that the commercial quantity of contraband seized from the petitioners and that the petitioners and the other accused had travelled together, it would fall within the rigour of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act.

Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Further, there is no change in circumstances from the earlier rejection of bail. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the same.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. nvi To 1.The Inspector of Police, 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. C.KUMARAPPAN,J., nvi

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Pandiyan vs The Inspector of Police Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan