Rengasurendiran v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector Of Police, Thiruverambur

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Rengasurendiran

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiruverumbur Police Station, Trichy.

(Crime No. 292 of 2025)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.SMA.Jinnah 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. 292 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 23.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(b), 22(c), 27(a) of NDPS, Act, 1985 in Crime No. 292 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 22.04.2025, at about 5.30 p.m., when the respondents police were in patrol duty, they found that A1 and A2 were in illegal possession of 16 MDMA tablets (7.1 grams) and 6 grams of ganja. Based on the confession of A1 and A2, the respondent police seized 45 MDMA tablets (weighing 20.02 grams) and 5 MDMA tablest (weighing 2.08 grams), Methaqualone weighing 9 grams and 10 grams 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 2/8

would further submit that he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.04.2025. 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 appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner was in illegal possession of contraband, due to which the case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(b), 22(c), 27(a) of NDPS, Act, 1985 in Crime No. 292 of 2025. He would further submit that the petitioner has no previous case. He would further submit that the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed and 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 though the prosecution stated that the contraband involved in this case is commercial quantity, 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.

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 Special Court for EC and NDPS Act cases, Pudukottai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned 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 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 5/8

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.

(P D B J) 22.06.2026 apd 6/8

To 1.The Special Court for EC and NDPS Act cases, Pudukottai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruverumbur Police Station, Trichy.

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

7/8

P. DHANABAL, J apd

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 10681 of 2026 Date : 22.06.2026 8/8