Kalpana Rani v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Kalpana Rani

...Petitioner/Accused No.4

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Vettaikaraniruppu Police Station, Nagapattinam District.

(Crime No.10 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Chandrapandi For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 10 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner /A4, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.01.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 1/8

20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.10 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.01.2025 at about 18.50 hours, the defacto complainant/police official received the secret information regarding the transportation of Ganja in grey colour innova car bearing Registration No.TN 19 R 0007 near Nagapattinam to Vethranayam at Puthupalli Bridge. Thereafter, the respondent Police arrived at the alleged occurrence and tried to stop the car and the said car was not stopped and rushed in a rash and negligent manner and the Police officials followed the said car and the said car skit and down the irrigation. Thereafter, the respondent Police found that the petitioner and other accused person were in illegal possession of 219.770 kgs of Ganja. Hence, the case.

2/8

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondent police have registered a false case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner is an innocent and she is nothing to do with the alleged offences. He would further contend that no contraband was recovered from the petitioner and based on the confession of coaccused, she has been arrayed as A4. She is in judicial custody from 13.01.2026. Therefore prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the accused was found in illegal possession of 219.770 of Ganja. He would further submit that the petitioner has no previous cases. He would further submit that the investigation is still 3/8

pending and hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, though the prosecution stated that the contraband involved in this case is a commercial quantity, the entire contraband were recovered from the other accused and no contraband was recovered from the petitioner and based on the confession of co-accused, she has been arrayed as A4 and the petitioner has no previous cases and the co-accused were already released on bail and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 13.01.2026, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

4/8

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur, on all working days at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which she is suspected;

5/8

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

6/8

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(P D B J) 17.04.2026 vsg To 1.The learned Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur.

2.The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Trichy.

3.The Inspector of Police, Vettaikaraniruppu Police Station, Nagapattinam District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

7/8

P. DHANABAL, J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 3316 of 2026 Date : 17.04.2026 8/8