K.Vijayarajan v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL K.Vijayarajan

...Petitioner/sole Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, PEW P.S Madurai City Crime No.706 of 2024

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manimaran 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. 706 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/7

The petitioner / A1, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.06.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in Crime No.706 of 2024 on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused were found in illegal possession of 28.140kgs 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 has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.06.2024. He would further submit that no previous case is pending against the petitioner and the petitioner has been implicated as an accused only based on the confession given by the coaccused. He would also submit that investigation in this case is also completed and trial also commenced. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2/7

the case of Ankur Chaudhary.vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (crl.) No.4648 of 2024 . Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground that the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity and entire contraband was recovered from this 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 though the prosecution stated that the contraband involved in this case is a commercial quantity no contraband was recovered from this petitioner and this petitioner has been implicated as an accused based on the confession statement given by the co-accused and also the fact that no previous case is pending against the petitioner though the case has been taken on file in CC No. 3/7

427of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge for EC and NDPS Act cases, Madurai so far trial has not been concluded and even according to the prosecution the petitioner the owner of the place where the contraband was dumped and also the fact that no previous case is pending against the petitioner and there are no record to show that he said place belongs to the petitioner and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner 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 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.

[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 II Additional District Judge for EC and NDPS Act cases, Madurai and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the trial Court daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he 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 5/7

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) 24.06.2026 aav To 1.The II Additional District Judge for EC and NDPS Act cases, Madurai 2.The Inspector of Police, PEW P.S Madurai City

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

6/7

P. DHANABAL, J aav

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 10487 of 2026 Date : 24.06.2026 7/7