← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/18790/2025granted

Lingadurai v. Union Of India

2026-04-30Honourable Mr. Justice P.Dhanabal7 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 30.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No.18790 OF 2025 Lingadurai ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs United of India, Represented through Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Tuticorin Regional Unit.

(F.No.DRI/CZU/TTN/VIII/48/03/INT-01/2025) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- To enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.2 on bail in connection with F.No.DRI/CZU/TTN/VIII/48/03/INT-01/2025 on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Rajan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor for DRI Cases ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to 1/7

judicial custody on 07.03.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 21(c), 23(c), 25, 27A, 28 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, in F.No.DRI/CZU/TTN/VIII/48/03/INT-01/2025 on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.03.2025, on secret information about the smuggling of prohibited Narcotic Substance from Tuticorin to Maldives, the respondent shared the said information with Indian Coast Guard. On 07.03.2026, at about 10.15 a.m, while the tug boat Shew Lin Yone was sailing at mid-sea with building construction material and rock boulder, the same was intercepted by the Indian Coast Guard. The petitioner was a Crew of the said tug boat. During the search of the tug boat, A1 and the accused were in possession of 29 kg of Hashish Oil. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case 2/7

and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that no recovery was made from the petitioner and recovery was only made from A1 and this petitioner only acted as Crew of tug boat and he is used to transport the goods through the said tug boat and according to him, A1 loaded the construction materials in the tug boat and while loading the construction material, he also loaded the contraband and no previous case is pending against the petitioner and he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.03.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that while the tug boat Shew Lin Yone was sailing at mid-sea with building construction materials and rock boulder, the same was intercepted by the Indian Coast Guard based on the secret information about the smuggling of prohibited Narcotic Substance from Tuticorin to Maldives and on search, the accused were in possession of 29 kg of Hashish Oil and the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity and the offence is grave in nature. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. He would further submit that no 3/7

previous case is pending against 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 involved in this case is a commercial quantity, even according to the prosecution, A1 had possession of the contraband and this petitioner only acted as Crew of tug boat and he is used to transport the goods through the said tug boat and according to him, A1 loaded the construction materials and while loading the construction material, they also loaded the contraband and no previous case is pending against the petitioner and even according to the prosecution, the contraband was identified by A1 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 4/7

each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Principal Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the trial Court daily 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 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;

[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 5/7

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) 30.04.2026 dss To 1.The Principal Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai.

2.United of India, Represented through Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Tuticorin Regional Unit.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

6/7

P. DHANABAL,J DSS

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.18790 OF 2025 Date : 30.04.2026 7/7