Zinga Kumar @ Jinka Kumar v. The Union Of India Rep By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 10751 of 2026 Zinga Kumar @ Jinka Kumar

...Petitioner

Vs Union of India rep. by The Superintendent of Police, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai.

NCB F.No.48/1/03/2025 NCB/MDS

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Advocate for Mr.R.Vignesh For Respondent : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar Special Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in NCB F.No.48/1/03/2025 NCB/MDS on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 10.01.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C), r/w. 1/6

20(b)(ii)(c), 28 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in NCB F.No.48/1/03/2025 NCB/MDS on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.02.2025, on secret information the respondent police went to the scene of occurrence, and found an abandoned Toyota Innova Crysta, wherein, 273.360 kgs. of ganja was recovered. A copy of aadhaar card belonging to the petitioner was found inside the vehicle. 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. The petitioner was not present in the scene of occurrence. Only on the basis of the xerox copy of the aadhaar card found in the Car, this petitioner was implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. The quantity involved in this case is commercial quantity. The xerox copy of the aadhaar card of the petitioner was found in the abandoned Car. On the basis of which, the 2/6

petitioner was traced out and arrested in this case. As per the travel agency's statement, the petitioner booked the car in his name and took the car in person. Co-accused in this case has been arrested and released on bail. There is no previous case against the petitioner. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed before the concerned Court. He vehemently opposed the grant of 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, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, even according to the prosecution they found abandoned car on 12.02.2025 itself, thereafter A1 has been summoned on 08.01.2026 and arrested after nearly one year after the date of occurrence, the petitioner has no previous case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he only booked the car and took the car in person, which is matter of trial, already co-accused has been released on bail and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

3/6

[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, Special Court under EC & NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court under EC & NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, at 10.30 a.m., and 05.00 p.m., on all working days 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 4/6

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) 23.06.2026 TM To 1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court under EC & NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai.

NCB F.No.48/1/03/2025 NCB/MDS 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 10751 of 2026 Date : 23.06.2026 6/6