Sabareeswaran v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Sabareeswaran, S/o.Manokaran, No.31 Kalaignar Colony Gangaikondan, Tirunelveli District..

... Petitioner/Accused No.8 Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi Nibcid Police Station, Thoothukudi, Crime No.19/2025..

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Ramnath, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-32B For Bail in Crime No.19/2025 on the file of the respondent police.

1/8

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner /A8, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.19 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.12.2025 at about 17.45 hours, based on the secret information regarding the transportation of Ganja, the respondent Police conducted vehicle check up at Madurai to Kanyakumari National Highways, at that time, they found that the accused persons were in illegal possession of 80 kgs of Ganja. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent police have 2/8

registered a false case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner is an innocent and he is nothing to do with the alleged offences. He would further contend that no contraband was recovered from the petitioner and based on the confession of the coaccused, he was arrayed as accused in this case and he is in judicial custody from 17.02.2026. Therefore he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the investigation is still pending. He would further submit that the accused persons were found in illegal possession of 80 kgs of Ganja. He would further submit that the petitioner has one previous case. However, 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 and the nature of the offence, though the prosecution has stated that the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity, entire contraband was recovered from A1, no contraband was recovered from this petitioner and the petitioner was arrayed as accused based on the confession of the co-accused and the and though the petitioner has one previous case and in that case, he was released on bail and the CDR records were available and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 17.02.2026, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: 4/8

[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 Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, on all working days at 10.30 a.m., and 05.00 p.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;

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 6/8

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 VSG TO 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi Nibcid Police Station, Thoothukudi.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

7/8

P. DHANABAL,J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11130 of 2026 Date : 25/06/2026 8/8