Monisha v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Monisha

2. Rekha ..Petitioners Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, P- 1, Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.55 of 2026 ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.55 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner:

Mr.Ajith Kumar For Respondent:

Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.02.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) of NDPS and alternate the Section 8(c), r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) of NDPS, in Crime No.55 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.02.2026, A1 along with A3 was found in possession of 21.500 kilograms of ganja. Based on the confession statement of A1, the present petitioners have been arrayed as accused. According to the prosecution, 10.550 kilograms of ganja was recovered from A1 and 10.600 kilograms of ganja was recovered from A2. Hence, the case was registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that no contraband was recovered from these petitioners and they are innocent and in no way connected with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that due to previous enmity, they have been falsely implicated by the respondent police. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners were taken to the police station under the guise of enquiry and thereafter implicated in the present case. It is also submitted that the petitioners are women and one of the petitioners has a young child to take care of. The petitioners have been in incarceration since 20.02.2026. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that though the total recovery in the case is commercial quantity, there is no direct recovery from these petitioners. It is further submitted that there are about nine accused involved in the case and the

petitioners have been implicated based on the materials collected during investigation. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

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

6. From the submission of the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that though the total recovery in the case is commercial quantity, admittedly there is no recovery from these petitioners. Taking into consideration the role attributed to the petitioners, qua they are the retailer for other accused, the fact that they are women aged about 20 and 37 years respectively, the first petitioner having a young child aged about 4 months and their incarceration since 20.02.2026, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a separate bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. X, Egmore, Chennai, and subject to the following conditions:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship

[Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;

[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] if the petitioners thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

08-06-2026 NSL Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this

Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. To

1. The Inspector of Police, P- 1, Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai.

2. The Metropolitan Magistrate No. X, Egmore, Chennai.

3. Central Prison (Women's) Puzhal, Chennai.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 08-06-2026