Chandru v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector Of Police, Pew-Cuddalore

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Chandru, S/o.Narasingaperumal, Vellaikulam, Annamalainagar, Chithambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District..

... Petitioner/Accused No.7 Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep BY, The Inspector of Police, PEW-Cuddalore, Police Station, Cuddalore.

(Crime No.905/2025).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Maheswaran R, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS 1/8

PRAYER :- C-32B. To enlarge the petitioner on Bail in C.C.No.46 of 2026 on the file the Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court Under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur in Crime No.905 of 2025 on the fie of Respondent and thus render justice.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused No.7, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.12.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.905 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, while the respondent police were on patrolling duty, at that time, they found that the petitioner and other accused persons were in illegal possession of 130 Tapentadol Tablets and 21 kgs of Ganja. Hence the case.

2/8

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent Police registered a case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985. He would further contend that the no contraband was recovered from the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is in judicial custody from 04.12.2025. Therefore, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the contraband recovered from the accused person is a commercial quantity. He would further submit that the investigation is pending. He would further submit that the offences are grave in nature. He would further submit that the 3/8

petitioner has two previous cases. However, 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 the quantity of the contraband involved in this case is a commercial quantity, no contraband was recovered from this petitioner and the entire contraband was recovered from the other accused and the investigation has been completed and the case is pending for trial and though the petitioner has two previous cases, which is not under commercial quantity and in both cases, he was already released on bail and the co-accused was already granted bail by this Court and also considering the period of incarceration undergone 4/8

by the petitioner from 04.12.2025, 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 Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District Judge, Special Court under EC Act Cases, Thanjavur, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the llearned Additional District Judge, Special Court under EC Act Cases, Thanjavur, on all working days at 10.30 a.m., and 05.00 p.m., until further orders.

5/8

[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;

[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 6/8

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) 25.06.2026 VSG TO 1.The learned Additional District Judge, Special Court under EC Act Cases, Thanjavur.

2. The Superintendent, Cuddalore Jail.

3.The Inspector of Police, PEW-Cuddalore, Police Station, Cuddalore.

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

7/8

P. DHANABAL,J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11706 of 2026 Date : 25/06/2026 8/8