Muthulakshmi v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 05/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Muthulakshmi, W/o. Kaniraja, North Street, Melavellamalapatti, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District..
... Petitioner/Accused No.3 Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep.By, The Inspector of Police, Cumbum North Police Station, Theni District, (Crime No.140/2025).
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr. Thiyagarajan.A., Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-32B. For Bail in Crime No. 140 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police...
1/8
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A3, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.140 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 09.06.2025 at 05.10 hours, the Sub Inspector of Police, based on secret information, along with a police party and equipment, conducted a surveillance near the tree behind Saint Mary's School on Kamagauntanpatti Road, Cumbam. At that time four persons including the petitioner were intercepted and found that they are in possession of 22 kgs. of ganja. Hence, the case.
2/8
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 even though prosecution stated that total contraband seized from all the accused is 22 kg, the contraband recovered from the petitioner is only 8 kgs and to that effect separate mahazar has been preferred and he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.06.2025. Therefore, he prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground that the offence are grave in nature and the commercial quantity is involved in this case. He further submit that the petitioner has five 3/8
previous cases. He would further submit that the investigation has been completed and final report has been filed.
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, the nature of the offence and though the prosecution stated that the quantity of contraband involved in this case is a commercial quantity, the contraband was recovered from different persons through separate mahazar and the same has been clubbed together and as far as this petitioner is concerned, the alleged contraband recovered is 8 kgs and the same is not a commercial quantity and though the petitioner has five previous cases, the same are not similar kind of offences and in all cases, he was released on bail and the 4/8
investigation has been completed and final report has been filed and the co-accused were arrested and released on bail and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 09.06.2025, 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 satisfaction of the learned Special Court for EC and NDPS Court Cases, Madurai, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the trial Court on all working days Morning at 10.30 a.m., and Evening at 05.00 p.m., until further orders.
5/8
[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 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 6/8
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.
(P D B J) 05.06.2026 VSG TO 1.The learned Special Court for EC and NDPS Court Cases, Madurai.
2. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nilakottai, Dindigul District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Cumbum North Police Station, Theni 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.8887 of 2026 Date : 05/06/2026 8/8