Sanjeevi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Kenikkarai

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 11.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 9289 of 2026 1.Sanjeevi 2.Roopan Raj 3.Prakash 4.Mahesh Kannan 5.Kumaresan 6.Ranjith

...Petitioners

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kennikarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram.

(Crime No.491 of 2025)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Subburaj Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocat (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 491 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/6

The petitioners / Accused, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.12.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act in Crime No.491 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.12.2025 at about 8.15 a.m., on receipt of secret information, the respondent officials went to the scene of occurrence, they found the accused persons are in possession of 542 kgs. of ganja. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. No recovery was made from these petitioners. Recovery was made from A1 and on his confession statement these petitioners have been implicated in this case. Coaccused has been released on bail. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. The quantity involved in this case is huge quantity. The contraband was recovered from A1. On his 2/6

confession other accused persons have been implicated. They have assisted the other accused to transport the contraband. The petitioners have some previous cases. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed before the concerned Court. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners.

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 charges levelled against the petitioners, though the prosecution has stated that the quantity involved in this case is commercial quantity, the entire contraband has been recovered from A1 and no contraband was recovered from these petitioners, on the basis of the confession statement made by the co-accused only these petitioners have been implicated in this case, co-accused were already released on bail, though the petitioners have some previous cases, in all cases they were granted bail, and they are not similar in nature, and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

3/6

[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, at 10.30 a.m., on all working days, until further orders;

[c] the petitioners 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 petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioners 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 4/6

Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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.

(P D B J) 11.06.2026 TM To 1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kennikarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram. (Crime No.491 of 2025) 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy. 4.The Superintendent, District Prison, Pudukkottai. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 9289 of 2026 Date : 11.06.2026 6/6