Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.KUMARAPPAN, J
Mohammed Badurudeen – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Inspector of Police, PEW Flower Bazaar Police Station, Chennai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail considerations in absence of direct evidence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on lack of recovery and co-accused bail. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's decision on bail based on circumstances. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on
29.01.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and
29(1) of the NDPS Act on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the co-accused was found in possession of 7 kgs of Ganja. Based on his confession, the petitioner herein has been arrayed as A8. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no direct recovery from the petitioner and that he has been roped in only through the confession statement of the co-accused, which factum was not seriously disputed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent. It is his further submission that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 25.02.2026 passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.4485 of 2026. Hence, he submits that this is a fit case in which the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. The
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
