Ali Akbar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Vettaikaran Iruppu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 08/06/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Ali Akbar ... Petitioner/Accused No.7 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Vettaikaraniruppu Police Station, Nagapattinam District.
Crime No.10 of 2026. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime no.10 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.
For Petitioner : Maharajan V, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner / A7, who was arrested and remanded to judicial 1/6
custody on 12.01.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.10 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The prosecution's case is that on 09.01.2026, around 06:50 pm, on secret information, the respondent police went to Pudhupalli Bridge on Nagapattinam-Vedharanyam Main Road and intercepted a car bearing Reg.No.TN-19-R-0007 and on search, driver of the vehicle was found in possession of 219.770 kg of ganja. Based on his confession, the petitioner herein was arrayed as an accused. Hence, this case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that no recovery was made from the petitioner and only based on the confession made by the co-accused, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in this case and already co-accused was arrested and released on bail and he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.01.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner. 2/6
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the accused (A1) was found in illegal possession of 219.770 kg of ganja and the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity and the investigation is still pending and the petitioner has 2 previous cases not similar in nature. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. He would further submit that already co-accused was arrested and released on bail. 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, and though the prosecution stated that the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity and no contraband was recovered from this petitioner and the entire contraband was recovered from A1 and the petitioner was arrayed as accused in this case based on the confession statement made by the co-accused and though the prosecution stated that the petitioner has 2 previous cases, 3/6
those cases are not a similar kind of offences and the petitioner is only a driver of the vehicle and the co-accused was already arrested and released on bail and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, 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 Additional District/Presiding Officer, Special Court under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the trial Court daily 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;
[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 4/6
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].
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.
08.06.2026 dss 5/6
P. DHANABAL,J DSS TO 1.The Additional District/Presiding Officer, Special Court under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Vettaikaraniruppu Police Station, Nagapattinam District. 3.The Superintendent, District Prison, Nagapattinam District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.8437 of 2026 Date : 08/06/2026 6/6