GOPI S vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — 1750/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 8(C), 20(b)(ii)(C). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 16th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNTJ010022632026
e-Filing Number
04-03-2026
Filing Number
1752/2026
Filing Date
07-Mar-2026
Registration No
1750/2026
Registration Date
07-Mar-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Thanjavur
Judge
2-Additional District Judge, Special Court under E C Act cases, Thanjavur
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Last updated 19-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
86
Police Station
Thanjavur South Police Station
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GOPI S
Adv. Boopathinathan V
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
Summary The Additional District Judge dismissed the bail petition of Gopi @ Vedi Gopi, who was charged with unlawful possession of 21.580 kilograms of ganja under the NDPS Act. The court found that the twin conditions required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not satisfied, particularly because the accused had 31 prior criminal cases and the seized quantity constitutes commercial quantity. The court applied the strict approach mandated by the Supreme Court in such drug offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
Additional District Judge, Special Court under E C Act cases, Thanjavur
-
13-Mar-2026
Orders
Additional District Judge, Special Court under E C Act cases, Thanjavur
-
11-Mar-2026
Enquiry
Additional District Judge, Special Court under E C Act cases, Thanjavur
-
09-Mar-2026
Enquiry
Additional District Judge, Special Court under E C Act cases, Thanjavur
-
07-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 1750/2026
Summary The Additional District Judge dismissed the bail petition of Gopi @ Vedi Gopi, who was charged with unlawful possession of 21.580 kilograms of ganja under the NDPS Act. The court found that the twin conditions required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not satisfied, particularly because the accused had 31 prior criminal cases and the seized quantity constitutes commercial quantity. The court applied the strict approach mandated by the Supreme Court in such drug offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts