R.Vimala v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.06.2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL R.Vimala ... Petitioner/Accused-1 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Madurai District.
Crime No. 65 of 2026.
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mani Maran For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.65 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. 1/7
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.65 of 2026, on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 26.02.2026 at 10.30 hours, the respondent police based on secret information they conducted a ride near Seenivasa Colony, Mottamalai Odukalam Muniyandi Temple Tank, at that time the accused persons were found in possession of 21 kgs of ganja. Hence, the case.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and she was falsely implicated in this case and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is alleged that the petitioner was in separate possession of 11 kgs of ganja only. He would further submit that co-accused were granted bail. He would further submit that she has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.02.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant 2/7
bail for the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner and other accused were found in illegal possession of 21 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. He would further submit that the petitioner has 13 previous cases. Considering the nature of grave offence, he strongly opposed to grant 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, nature of offence, and though as per prosecution, the quantity of contraband involved in this case is a commercial quantity, the contraband were recovered through separate mahazar from different persons in a public place and the same has been clubbed together and treated as commercial quantity and as far as this petitioner is concerned, the alleged contraband recovered from him is 11 kgs which is 3/7
not a commercial quantity and also considering the facts that the petitioner has been granted bail in the previous cases registered against her as well as 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, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and 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 Sessions Judge, Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Phychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Phychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai, daily at 10.30 a.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;
4/7
[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.
(P D B J) 22.06.2026 apd 5/7
TO
1. The Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Phychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai
2. The Superintendent, District Prison, Theni
3. The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Madurai District.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL,J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.11384 of 2026 Date : 22.06.2026 7/7