← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/17383/2025granted

Chandrasekar @ Chandru v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By

2026-04-21Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 21.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 17383 of 2025 Chandrasekar @ Chandru

...Petitioner/Accused-2

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Thiruppapuliyur Police Station, Cuddalore District.

(Crime No. 129 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sujeeth Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 129 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. 1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.03.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, in Crime No. 129 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that based on the secret information, on 28.03.2025, at about 02.00 p.m, the respondent police went to a old building near at Asthuma Hospital, M.Pudur, and surrounded that building and they found 10 persons along with a two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-31-CP-2172. On seeing the police party, the accused tried to escape from the scene of occurrence. However, the respondent police nabbed them. On searching, the accused were found in illegal joint possession of 21 kg of ganja. Hence, this case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He 2/6

would further submit that no recovery was made from the petitioner and only based on the confession made by the co-accused, he was implicated in this case and already the co-accused were released on bail and he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.03.2025. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity and the accused were found in illegal joint possession of contraband and the petitioner has 3 previous cases and among them, 1 is 302 IPC case and other 2 cases are small quantity. He would further submit that the offences are grave in nature 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, and though the prosecution stated that 3/6

the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity, no contraband was recovered from the petitioner and only based on the confession made by the co-accused, he was implicated in this case and already the co-accused were already released on bail and though the petitioner has some previous cases, all cases are not similar kind of offences and in all cases, he was released on bail and considering 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, 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 Special Court for NDPS and EC Cases, Thanjavur, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the trial Court, 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;

4/6

[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) 21.04.2026 dss 5/6

P. DHANABAL, J dss To 1.The Special Court for NDPS and EC Cases, Thanjavur, Special Court for NDPS and EC Cases, Thanjavur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppapuliyur Police Station, Cuddalore District.

3. The Superintendent, Cuddalore Prison.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 17383 of 2025 Date : 21.04.2026 6/6