Rizwan Ultag vs State Rep by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Jan 30, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1520497

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/1520497
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Jan 30, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/36137/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rizwan Ultag

Respondent

State Rep by

Excerpt

.....the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that,petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case and no recovery effected from the petitioner. hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.4. the learned government advocate (crl. side) reitereated the prosecution case and submitted that a1 and a2 went to andhra pradesh andbrought 22 kgs of ganja and and petitioner joined with them at railway station and three persons transported the same in the auto and came to the bus stop while waiting in bus stand police have been intercepted and the contraband was recovered. he further submitted that the petitioner and other accused are known to each other and they hails from the same place and hence the petitioner was in conscious possession of the contraband. hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.5. c considering the facts, nature of offence and the fact that thiscourt has dismissed the earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner in crl.o.p.no.15123 of 2025 dated 11.11.2025 and there is no change in circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.6. accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. smak.rajasekar, j.smn to 1.the inspector of police, 2.the public prosecutor, high court of madras. crl.o.p.no36137 of 2025

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
Rizwan Ultag ...... Petitioner/A3 Vs. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, (Crime No.760 of 2024) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No.760 of 2024 pending on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : M/s.T.Balaji For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.10.2024, for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) of NDPS Act in Crime No.760 of 2024, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent police received

information about the transportation of ganja, that the petitioner is likely to transport 22 kgs of ganja from Andhra Pradesh to Tamil Nadu. On the basis of information received, the respondent police had illegally transported 22 kgs of ganja from Andhra Pradesh to Tamil Nadu On information received, the respondent police at about 15.00 hrs, on 14.10.2024, intercepted the petitioner along with two other person who were waiting with plastic bag, after following the mandatory procedure, they conducted search and seized 22 kgs of ganja (commercial quantity) and thereafter respondent police arrested them and remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the case.

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

petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case and no recovery effected from the petitioner. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reitereated the prosecution case and submitted that A1 and A2 went to Andhra Pradesh and

brought 22 kgs of ganja and and petitioner joined with them at Railway Station and three persons transported the same in the Auto and came to the bus stop while waiting in bus stand police have been intercepted and the contraband was recovered. He further submitted that the petitioner and other accused are known to each other and they hails from the same place and hence the petitioner was in conscious possession of the contraband. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. C Considering the facts, nature of offence and the fact that this

Court has dismissed the earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.15123 of 2025 dated 11.11.2025 and there is no change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. sma

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

smn To 1.The Inspector of Police, 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Crl.O.P.No36137 of 2025

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Rizwan Ultag vs State Rep by Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar