← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/10611/2026granted

A.Arun v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Nib - Cid

2026-06-25Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal9 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL A.Arun

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, NIB-CID, Madurai.

(Crime No. 4 of 2024 )

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Thiruppathi 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. 4 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police. 1/9

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.02.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No. 4 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.02.2024 at about 4.00 p.m., based on the secret information, when the respondent were conduction search, they found that A1 was in illegal possession of 250 grams of Methaphetamin and other substance. Based on his confession, the petitioner has been arrayed as accused. 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 no 2/9

contraband was recovered from this petitioner and entire contraband was recovered from A1 and based on the confession of A1 only the petitioner has been arrayed as accused. He would further submit that he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.02.2024. He would further submit that after investigation, final report was filed and the case is pending for trial and also the petitioner is in custody for more than one year. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ankur Chaudhary. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (crl.) No.4648 of 2024. Therefore, 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 dafacto complainant, the case has been registered under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No. 4 of 2024. He would further submit that after investigation, 3/9

charge sheet was filed and the case is pending for trial 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 available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and considering the facts that no contraband was recovered from this petitioner and entire contraband was recovered from A1 and based on the confession of A1 only the petitioner has been arrayed as accused and also the petitioner is in custody more than one year and now, after investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case is pending for trial and also taking into consideration the judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of Ankur Chaudhary.vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (crl.) No.4648 of 2024, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme 4/9

Court has observed that it is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time in prolonged incarceration militates Article 21 of the Constitution of India and as such conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, in such circumstances, be considered, in the case of hand also the case is posted for trial and so far, the trial has not been concluded and there is no scope to conclude the trial within the short time, 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 learned Principal Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned 5/9

Principal Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai, 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;

[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 6/9

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) 25.06.2026 apd To 1.The Principal Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, NIB-CID, Madurai.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

7/9

P. DHANABAL, J apd

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 10611 of 2026 8/9

Date : 25.06.2026 9/9