S.Pandi @ Jayachandran v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Andipatti

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 19/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL S.Pandi @ Jayachandran, S/o.Sekar, Ayyan Thoppu, Thankachimadam, Ramanathapuram District..

... Petitioner/Accused No.4 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Andipatti Police Station, Theni District.

Crime No.19/2023.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Na.Manimaran for Mr.Kannan C., Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-32B. To release the petitioner / accused no.4 on bail in Crime No.19 of 2023 in C.C.No.989/2023 now pending Special Principal District Judge for EC and NDPS Act cases Madurai on the file of the respondent Police.

1/8

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused No.4, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.09.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No. 19 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that based on the secret information, on 16.01.2023 at about 6.30 hrs, when the respondent police were on patrol duty, they found that the petitioner and other accused were in illegal joint possession of 1200 kgs of ganja. Hence the 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 2/8

alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that based on the confession of the coaccused only, the petitioner has been arrayed as accused and no recovery was made from this petitioner. He would further submit that he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.09.2025. Therefore, he prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the case has been registered under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No. 19 of 2023. He would further submit that the petitioner has two previous cases, which are similar in nature. He would further submit that the offences are grave in nature and hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

3/8

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 considering the facts that based on the confession of the co-accused only, the petitioner has been arrayed as accused and no recovery was made from this petitioner and though the petitioner has two previous cases, in all cases only based on the confession of the coaccused, the petitioner has been arrayed as accused and no recovery was made from this petitioner in previous cases also and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 27.09.2025 and also considering the fact that though the case is pending for more than three years, no trial has been completed so far and also considering the period of 4/8

incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 27.09.2025, hence 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 Principal District Judge for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Special Principal District Judge for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, on all workings days at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not commit 5/8

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 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) 19.06.2026 TO 1.The learned Special Principal District Judge for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.

2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore. 3.The Inspector of Police, Andipatti 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.10669 of 2026 Date : 19/06/2026 8/8