Bala Natesh v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Pew

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 08.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 5896 of 2026 Bala Natesh ... Petitioner Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, PEW - Police Station, Madurai District.

(in Crime No.204 of 2025)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mahendra Pathy Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.204 of 2025 on the file of the respondent. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.09.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w. 209b)(ii)(c), 25, 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.204 of 2025, on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

1/6

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 08.09.2025, at 04.30 hours, on secret information, the police parties went to surveillance and found that the accused persons were in possession of 26 kgs. of Ganja. Hence, the case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not involved in any offence as alleged in the FIR. The contraband involved in this case is not a commercial quantity. In respect of this petitioner, it is alleged that the petitioner was in possession of 3 kgs. of Ganja in separate Car. The recovery mahazar also separate. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the offences are grave in nature. The quantity involved in this case is commercial quantity. Totally 26 kgs. of Ganja have been recovered. 23 Kgs of Ganja were recovered from one Ajith Kumar and 3 Kgs. of Ganja was recovered from this petitioner. All other accused were present in the scene of occurrence. The petitioner is having three previous cases, but not similar in nature. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet was also filed before 2/6

the concerned Court. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of 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, considering the nature of offence, and though the prosecution has stated that the quantity involved in this case is commercial quantity, the contraband recovered from this petitioner is not a commercial quantity and the same was recovered in separate mahazar and the main accused having possession of 23 kgs, which is commercial quantity, and though the petitioner has some previous cases, they are not similar in nature and in all those cases, he has been released on bail, investigation has also been completed and the final report has been filed before the concerned Court and also considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner from 08.09.2025, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: [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 3/6

satisfaction of the Principal Special Court for Trial of NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for Trial of NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, on all working days, at 10.30 a.m., and 05.00 p.m. until further orders. [c] the petitioner shall not left India without getting any permission from the concerned Court;

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

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

[f] 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; [g] 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 4/6

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

(P D B J) 06.04.2026 TM To 1.The Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court of NDPS Act Cases, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, PEW - Police Station, Madurai District.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 5896 of 2026 Date : 08.04.2026 6/6