Madhavan @ Sathya vs State Rep By The Station House Officer
2026 Latest Caselaw 1700 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1700 Mad
Judgement Date : 8 April, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Madhavan @ Sathya vs State Rep By The Station House Officer on 8 April, 2026

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                        DATED : 08.04.2026

                                                             CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

                                                   Crl.O.P.No.8744 of 2026

                   Madhavan @ Sathya                                             ... Petitioner(s)

                                                               Vs.

                   State rep. by the Station House Officer,
                   T.R.Pattinam Police Station,
                   Karaikal District.
                                                   ... Respondent(s)
                   [Crime No.45 of 2026]

                   PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023,
                   to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.45 of 2026 pending on
                   the file of the respondent police.



                                    For Petitioner(s)          : Mr.M.Ponmudi

                                    For Respondent(s)          : Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthy
                                                                 Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)

                                                             ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

24.02.2026 for the alleged offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act,

1985, in Crime No.45 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with the other

accused, was found to be in illegal possession of 1.282 kgs of ganja. Hence, the

case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner

has been under incarceration since 24.02.2026 and that the contraband

recovered is only an intermediate quantity. He would further submit that the

petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by

this Court. Hence, he prays for the grant of bail.

4. However, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the

petitioner has got one previous case, but such case is not of similar nature and

that the contraband recovered from the accused is lower side of the intermediate

quantity.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the

learned counsel on either side.

6. From the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor, the

petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 24.02.2026 and the recovery is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis only 1.282 kgs of ganja, which is a threshold of the intermediate quantity.

Hence, taking into consideration of the incarceration of the petitioner since

24.02.2026 and the recovery of the contraband is only a lesser side of the

intermediate quantity, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with

certain stringent conditions:

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his

executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand

only), with two sureties each for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the learned

Special Judge, Karaikal, subject to the following conditions:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m and 5.30 p.m for a period of 60 days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

08.04.2026 ata

Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

1. The Special Judge, Karaikal.

2. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Karaikal.

3. The Station House Officer, T.R.Pattinam Police Station, Karaikal District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

ata

08.04.2026

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis