Raja v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Raja, S/o. Karuppaiah, No. 2/45, Ilanthaikoottam, Chittarkottai, Ramanathapuram District..

... Petitioner/Accused No.7 Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep., By, the Inspector of Police, Andipatti Police Station, Theni District (Crime No. 403 of 2024).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.G.Vishnuram, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS 1/9

PRAYER :- C-32B. To enlarge the petitioner on bail in C.C.No. 131 of 2025, on the file of the Additional District Judge, I Additional Special Court for NDPS Court Cases, Madurai in Crime No. 403 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police...

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner /A7, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.03.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.403 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.09.2024 at about 17.45 hours, the defacto complainant/police official received the secret information regarding the sale of Ganja and the police officials stopped the accused's vehicle bearing Regisration No.TN 57 BS 8389, and found that the other accused were in illegal possession 2/9

of 31.370 kgs of Ganja. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondent police have registered a false case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner is an innocent and he is nothing to do with the alleged offences. He would further contend that no contraband was recovered from the petitioner and based on the confession of coaccused, he has been arrayed as A7. He is in judicial custody from 07.03.2025. Therefore prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has no previous cases. He would further submit that the investigation has been completed and final report has been filed 3/9

and now the case is pending for trial and the offences are grave in nature and the petitioner has six previous cases and hence, 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, though the prosecution stated that the contraband involved in this case is a commercial quantity, the entire contraband were recovered from the other accused and no contraband was recovered from the petitioner and based on the confession of co-accused, he has been arrayed as A7 and though petitioner has six previous cases, in all cases, he was released on bail and no commercial quantity involved in the previous cases and the investigation has been completed 4/9

and final report has been filed and now the case is pending for trial and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 07.03.2025, 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 I Additional District Judge/I Additional Special Court for NDPS Court Cases, Madurai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned I Additional District Judge/I Additional Special Court for NDPS Court 5/9

Cases, Madurai, on all working days at 10.30 a.m., and 05.00 p.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;

[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;

6/9

[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) 25.06.2026 VSG 7/9

TO 1.The learned I Additional District Judge/I Additional Special Court for NDPS Court Cases, Madurai.

2. The Superintendent, District Jail, Theni.

3. Inspector of Police, Andipatti Police Station, Theni District.

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

8/9

P. DHANABAL,J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11852 of 2026 Date : 25/06/2026 9/9