Thameem v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 8181 of 2025 Thameem ... Petitioner Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, PEW - Dindigul Police Station, Dindigul.

(in Crime No.695 of 2024)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Raja for M/s.Ezhilarasu Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.695 of 2024 on the file of the respondent. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.10.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 2004, in Crime No.695 of 2024, on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

1/7

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 20.05.2024, a regular vehicle check up was made at Dindigul - Trichy Road at about 2.30 a.m. An Auto was intercepted, and this Auto was surrounded by the police and A1, A3, A4, A5, A6 and A7 disclosed their names. After being informed about their rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the accused persons waiving their rights, 15 Kgs of Ganja were recovered from A1 and 15 Kgs of Ganja were recovered from A3. In total, 30 Kgs of Ganja were seized from the accused persons. On further probe, A3 disclosed that he had an acquaintance with A2 when they were inside jail and he was also the friend of A1. A1 informed A2 to get in contact with A9 (A2's wife) in order to know the place from which the Ganja has to be procured.

When A2 contacted A9, she is said to have given a mobile number which belonged to a person residing at Chennai. That mobile number was traced to the name of the petitioner (A10). She informed A2 and A3 to get the contraband from A10. Accordingly, the contraband was procured from A10 in this case. On completion of the seizure and on arrest of the accused persons, a report was sent under Section 57 of NDPS Act. There are totally 10 accused persons in this case and the petitioner has been arrayed as A10.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence, and he has been falsely implicated in 2/7

this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was absolutely no recovery from the petitioner and in fact, this petitioner was added as an accused only in the police report. The earlier bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Though this Court issued direction to complete the trial process within a period of four months. But, so far it was not completed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration from 25.10.2024 and therefore, the learned counsel requested this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, based on the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, submitted that pursuant to the confession given by the co-accused, call record details were analyzed and it was found that A10 had contacted A1 for nearly 65 times and had contacted A9 for about 3 times. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that there are no previous cases against the petitioner. The trial is pending before the trial Court. PW1 to PW5 were examined in chief, but the accused did not chose to cross examine them. But filed recall application. He vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on 3/7

record.

9. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, considering the nature of offence, no contraband was recovered from this petitioner and this petitioner is not named accused in the FIR, only based on the confession of the co-accused he was implicated, there is no previous case against the petitioner, already this Court directed the trial Court to complete the trial within four months by the order dated 25.12.2024, but, still the trial is pending, only PW1 to PW5 alone were examined, and also considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner from 25.10.2024, 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 satisfaction of the Principal Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Phychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the Principal Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Phychotropic Substances Act Cases, 4/7

Madurai, daily at 10.30 a.m. and 05.00 p.m., on all working days, until further orders.

[c] 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;

[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 2660]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(P D B J) 16.04.2026 TM 5/7

To 1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Phychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, PEW - Dindigul Police Station, Dindigul.

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

6/7

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 8181 of 2025 Date : 16.04.2026 7/7