Magalakshmi v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 29/06/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Magalakshmi ... Petitioner/Accused No.3 Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep By, The Inspector of Police, Uthamapalayam Police Station, Theni.
Cr.No.219 of 2024. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- To enlarge the petitioner on bail in C.C.No.17 of 2025 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and pass such further or other order as this Hon`ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and ...
For Petitioner : Vignesh A, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel For State of TN (Crl.Side) 1/6
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.07.2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 20(b)(II)(C), 25, 29(1), and 8(c) of NDPS Act in Crime No.219 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.07.2024 at about 06.45 a.m, the Sub-Inspector of police received an information about the possession of ganja and recovered it in the general diary and informed to the superior officer. Thereafter, a police team went to the spot and they found four male and two female persons with a gunny bag. They were informed about their rights and after completing the formalities, the gunny bag was searched and a total of 21.600 kg of ganja was seized. The further case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 gave a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the petitioner and A4. They in turn, purchased the contraband from A8 and A9 who belonged to Andhra Pradesh. On coming to know of the same, the police team visited Andhra Pradesh and arrested A8 & A9. At the time of arrest, A8 was found in possession of 8.450 kg of ganja and A9 was found in possession of 5.500 kg of ganja. 2/6
They made a confession to the effect that they had purchased the ganja from A10 in huge quantities and that they used to sell the same in Tamil Nadu. Accordingly, A10 was identified and was arrested on the same day and 8.580 kg of ganja was seized. A8 to A10 were brought to Tamil Nadu by means of a transit warrant and they were produced before the concerned Court and were remanded to judicial custody.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court, vide common order dated 03.02.2025, dismissed the bail applications of A10/Rata Vijay Babu, A1/Niranjan Raja, A2/V.Saravana Kumar, and A3/Mahalakshmi/Petitioner. This order was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by A2/V.Saravana Kumar in SLA.(Crl.)No.11828/ 2025 and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 granted bail to him and on the strength of the same, subsequently, A10/Rata Vijay Babu, filed an appeal in SLA.(Crl.)No.21317/2025 and the Hon'ble Apex Court also granted bail to him by observing the following facts: "2. Considering the fact that the co-accused namely, V.Saravana Kumar, has been released on bail, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, we 3/6
deem it appropriate to released the petitioners on bail."
4. It is the specific case of the prosecution that A1, A3 & A8 to A10 were on the same footing and since the Hon'ble Apex Court has granted bail to A2 & A10, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is also entitled to the grant of bail on the ground of parity.
5. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.
[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and on further conditions that:; [b] the petitioner shall report before the Trial Court daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 4 weeks and thereafter as and when required before respondent;
[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 4/6
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 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.
29.06.2026 dss 5/6
K. RAJASEKAR,J DSS To
1. The Additional District Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.
2. The Inspector of Police, Uthamapalayam Police Station, Theni.
3.The Superintendent, Nilakottai Women Sub Jail, Dindigul. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.12694 of 2026 Date : 29/06/2026 6/6