Azhagar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Uchipuli

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 30/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Azhagar, S/o. Karuthasamy, 3/93, West Street, Perunkulam, Ramanathapuram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Uchipuli Police Station, Ramanathapuram District, (Crime No. 155/2026).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Antony Santhosh U, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) 1/8

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-32B-For Bail in crime no 155/2026 on the fil of the Respondent Police, ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Sole Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.05.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.155 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 4.120 kgs of Ganja. Hence, the complaint has been registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He further submitted that 2/8

the petitioner is incarceration from 20.05.2026 and the quantity involved in this case is a intermediate quantity and Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable to this case. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Counsel for State of TN (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the petitioner illegally trafficked 4.120 kgs of Ganja. He further submitted that the petitioner is having seven previous cases, out of which, one is similar in nature and he is a history sheeter in H.S.No.10 of 2025 on the file of the Uchipuli Police Station. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.In the present case, the petitioner's name was included in the history sheet, while he was aged about 18 years. It shows that the manner in which the police have approached the teenagers. It is right time for the police to have different approach with them to bring down the recidivism 3/8

and required immediate steps in the matter. It is unfortunate that a teenager just reached the age of 18 included in the history sheet. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai, is directed to conduct enquiry in this regard and appropriate steps may be taken to bring him into society as a valuable person.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the period of incarceration and also his antecedents and the quantity recovered is not commercial quantity, 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 condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, and on further conditions that:

4/8

[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, on all working days at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation before the respondent police:

[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;

5/8

[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.

8.List the matter on 22.07.2026, "for reporting compliance". (K R S J) 30.06.2026 VSG 6/8

TO 1.The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District.

3. The Superintendent, Pudukkottai Prison, Pudukkottai. 4.The Inspector of Police, Uchipuli Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

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

7/8

K. RAJASEKAR,J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.12821 of 2026 Date : 30/06/2026 8/8