Manikandan @ Mani v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Kenikkarai

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 19.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 11138 of 2026 Manikandan @ Mani

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kenikkarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

(Crime No.491 of 2025)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Subburaj 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. 491 of 2025 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 24.05.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.491 of 2025 on the file of 1/6

the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that when the respondent police went on patrol duty on 24.12.2025, at about 08.15 a.m., they found that the accused persons are in possession of 542 kilograms 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. Though the quantity involved is commercial quantity, no contraband was recovered from this petitioner and the entire contraband have been recovered from Co-accused. This petitioner has been implicated on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused. Co-accused in this case have also been released on bail. The petitioner was not arrested in the scene of occurrence. The petitioner is not the named accused in the FIR. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. The entire contraband has been recovered from A1. On their confession statement the other accused persons have been implicated in this case. A6 to A12 were 2/6

released on bail. The petitioner has two previous cases and those cases were disposed of by the trial Court by acquitting the accused. Investigation in this case has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed before the concerned Court. Hence, he 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, the quantity involved in this case is commercial quantity, the contraband was recovered from A1 and no contraband has been recovered from this petitioner, on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused this petitioner has been implicated in this case, co-accused namely A6 to A12 were released on bail, though the petitioner has two previous cases, they were already disposed of acquitting the petitioner, 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:

[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 3/6

Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District Judge, Special Court under EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Additional District Judge, Special Court under EC and 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 Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions 4/6

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 51730]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(P D B J) 19.06.2026 TM To 1.The Additional District Judge, Special Court under EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kenikkarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.491 of 2025) 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Pudukkottai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5/6

P. DHANABAL, J.

TM

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 11138 of 2026 Date : 19.06.2026 6/6