A.Sachin v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector Of Police, Jetty
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL A.Sachin
...Petitioner/A5
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Jetty Police Station, Ramanathapuram.
(Crime No. 52 of 2025)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mani Maran Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 52 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. 1/8
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1), 25 of NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No. 52 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that based on the secret information, on 07.06.2025 at about 9.30 hrs, when the respondent police were in patrol duty, they found that the petitioner and other accused were in illegal possession of 50 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 alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner along with A4, A6 was standing outside the car and 2/8
they were in possession of only 10kgs of ganja, which is not commercial quantity. He would further submit that he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.06.2025. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that based on the complaint lodged by defacto complainant, the case has been registered under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1), 25 of NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No. 52 of 2025. He would further submit that the accused/A1 to A3 were inside the car and A4 to A6 were standing outside the car and they were in joint illegal possession of 50 kgs of ganja, which is under commercial quantity. He would further submit that the petitioner has no previous case. He would further submit that the investigation is completed and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials 3/8
available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and considering the facts that though prosecution stated that quantity involved in this case is commercial quantity, as per FIR, A4 to A6 were standing outside the car with one bag which containing 5 packs of ganja each 2 kgs and the same has been recovered from them and in the car, from A1 to A3, 20 packs each containing 2 kgs of ganja have been recovered and both the contraband were recovered from different persons from different places; however, they have been clubbed together and as far as this petitioner is concerned, he is standing outside the car and there is no specific allegation about this petitioner and there is an omnibus allegation as against the three persons and there is no specific mention about a particular person from whom the contraband was recovered and the petitioner has no previous case and also investigation is completed and the case is pending for trial, considering the period of incarceration 4/8
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 learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act cases, Pudukottai, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act cases, Pudukottai daily at 10.30 a.m., 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;
5/8
[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 5560].
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.
6/8
(P D B J) 22.06.2026 apd To 1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act cases, Pudukottai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Jetty Police Station, Ramanathapuram.
3. The Superintendent, District Prison, Pudukottai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
P. DHANABAL, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 10715 of 2026 Date : 22.06.2026 8/8