Karthik vs The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police
2026 Latest Caselaw 1816 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1816 Mad
Judgement Date : 10 April, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Karthik vs The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police on 10 April, 2026

                                                                             CRL OP No. 9052 of 2026


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                  DATED: 10-04-2026
                                                       CORAM
                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
                                                CRL OP No. 9052 of 2026
                Karthik
                                                                                     ..Petitioner
                                                          Vs
                The State Rep By,
                The Inspector of Police
                PEW-Hosur Police Station,
                Krishnagiri District.
                Crime No.97 of 2026
                                                                                   ..Respondent

                Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 483 of BNSS Act to
                enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail in the Crime No.97 of 2026 on the file of
                PEW-Hosur Police Station, Krishnagiri District.


                              For Petitioner:          Mr.I.M.Sidartha Ramarajan

                              For Respondent:          Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar,
                                                       Govt.Advocate (Crl Side)


                                                       ORDER

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

25.02.2026 for the alleged offence under Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act

1985 in Crime No.97 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in

__________ Page1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

possession of 3.300 kg of ganja. Hence, this case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has not

committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that

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

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

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and fairly

submitted that the petitioner was in possession of 3.300 kg of ganja which

comes under intermediate quantity and the petitioner has no previous case

pending against him. However, he opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and

perused the materials available on record.

6. From the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and

taking into consideration of the above averment of the learned Government

Advocate (Crl.Side), this Court is of the firm view that it is appropriate to

consider the bail application of the petitioner as the quantity comes under

intermediate one and also considering the duration of incarceration of the

__________ Page2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

petitioner since 25.02.2026, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on

bail subject to certain 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

Additional District Judge and Presiding Officer, Special Court under EC

Act, Salem, and on further conditions that:

[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. for a period of forty five 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 pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble

__________ Page3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

10-04-2026 SHL

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.

10-04-2026 SHL

To: