SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 19027

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.KUMARAPPAN, J
Rabindra Kumar Mallick – Appellant
Versus
State represented by The Inspector of Police, PEW Ambattur Police Station, Ambattur, Chennai – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition|Crime No.195 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Ramasekar
For the Respondents:Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

A request for bail was denied based on the risk of misuse of liberty by the petitioner, supported by prior criminal cases.

Headnote:This judgment analyzes the petitioner’s request for bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, following arrest for alleged NDPS Act violations. The court outlines the prosecution's claim of possession of ganja chocolates and emphasizes the potential risk of misuse if bail is granted. Ultimately, it finds that the petitioner’s continued detention is warranted due to previous cases against him, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

Table of Content
1. request for bail based on prior detention. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. opposition to bail due to multiple prior cases. (Para 4)
3. risk of misuse of liberty if bail is granted. (Para 5 , 6)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

15.12.2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, in Crime No.195 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was found in possession of 10 kilograms of ganja chocolates. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and that the contraband seized is of commercial quantity. He would further submit that the petitioner has been in custody since 15.12.2025 and therefore prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner, submitted that there are ten previous cases against the petitioner. It was further submitted that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of the petitioner misusing the liberty granted by this Court.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. Though the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 15.12.2025, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), there is every possibility of the petitioner misusing the liberty granted by this Court if enlarged on bail. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top