Amalraj v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. Amalraj, S/o.Pathiyanathan @ Pathinathan, No. 1/427, Francis Nagar, Pamban, Rameshwaram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District..

2. Prathap, S/o.Pathiyanathan @ Pathinathan, No. 1/427, Francis Nagar, Pamban, Rameshwaram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District..

3. Santhiya, S/o.Dhasan, Pananthoppu, Kamarajar 3rd Lane,Pamban, Rameshwaram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District..

... Petitioners/A3 to A5 Vs 1/9

State of Tamilnadu Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Pudukkottai Town Police Station, Pudukkottai.

Crime No. 49/2026..

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.V. Karuna, 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. 49 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A3 to A5, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Section 123 of BNS and Sections 22(C), 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985 r/w 18(C) 18(A), 28(A) and 27(b)(ii) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, in Crime No.49 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

2/9

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 21.02.2026, based on the secret information about the transportation of Ganja, the respondent Police raid the backside of TVS Corner, Pudukkottai Town, and found that the petitioner was in illegal possession of 4,82,000 numbers of capsules and Tanydol-100 tablets. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the respondent Police registered a case against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Section 123 of BNS and Sections 22(C), 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985 r/w 18(C) 18(A), 28(A) and 27(b) (ii) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. He would further contend that the no contraband was recovered from the petitioners and based on the confession of co-accused, they have been arrayed as A3 and A5. They are in judicial custody from 3/9

22.02.2026. Therefore, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the contraband recovered is a commercial quantity and the investigation is still pending. The first petitioners has three previous cases and the second petitioner has one previous case and the third petitioner has one previous case and thereby, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

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 quantity of the contraband involved in this case is a commercial 4/9

quantity, no contraband was recovered from these petitioners and only based on the confession of co-accused, the petitioners have been arrayed as accused and though the petitioners have some previous cases, the same are not similar kind of offences and in all cases, they were released on bail, and the material part of the investigation might have been completed and even according to the prosecution, the petitioners were standing nearby the place of occurrence and apart from that, there are no other specific allegations levelled against the petitioner and the coaccused was already granted bail by this Court and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners from 22.02.2026, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on 5/9

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/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioners shall report before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, on all working days Morning at 10.30 a.m., and Evening at 05.00 p.m., until further orders.

[c] the petitioners shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, or of 6/9

the commission of which she is suspected;

[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as 7/9

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 VSG TO 1.The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai.

2. The Superintendent, District Prison, Pudukkottai.

3.The Inspector of Police, Pudukkottai Town Police Station, Pudukkottai.

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

8/9

P. DHANABAL,J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11743 of 2026 Date : 25/06/2026 9/9