Ranjith vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1909 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1909 Mad
Judgement Date : 16 April, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Ranjith vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ... on 16 April, 2026

                                                                           CRL OP(MD). No.6613 of 2026


                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                    Dated : 16/04/2026

                                                         CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

                                              CRL OP(MD). No.6613 of 2026

                     Ranjith                             ... Petitioner/Accused No.2

                                                            Vs

                     The State of Tamilnadu Rep by,
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     PEW-Kovilpatti Police Station,
                     Thoothukudi District.
                     Crime No.52/2025.            ... Respondent/Complainant

                     PRAYER :-

                          For Bail in Crime No.52/2025 on the file of the respondent
                     Police.

                       For Petitioner : Danush Kumar M,
                                 Advocate.
                       For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan,
                                 Additional Public Prosecutor


                                                          ORDER

The petitioner / A2, who was arrested and remanded to judicial

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

custody on 30.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections

8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS, Act, in Crime No.52 of 2025 on the file of

the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.04.2025, at about 05.30

p.m, on secret information, the respondent police went to near Kovilpatti

Inammaniyachi RKV Tower in the west of PEW Kovilpatti Police

Station and they found the petitioner and another accused were found in

illegal possession of 10 kg of ganja separetly. 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

and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He

would further submit that the contraband recovered from the petitioner is

only 10 kg and it does not come under the commercial quantity and

separate mahazar has been prepared and he has been arrested and

remanded to judicial custody on 30.04.2025. Therefore, prayed to grant

bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

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

respondent strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner on the ground

that the petitioner and A1 found in illegal possession of 20 kg of ganja.

And the petitioner is having 2 IPC cases. However, he fairly conceded

that the contraband recovered from the petitioner is 10 kg and it is a

intermediate quantity and in previous cases, he was released on bail.

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

the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity, the

prosecution clubbed all the contraband recovered separately on separate

mahazar and the contraband recovered from the two different persons

and as far as the petitioner is concerned through separate mahazar, 10 kg

of contraband was recovered and thereby, it is not a commercial quantity

and no previous case is pending against the petitioner for similar kind of

offence and though the petitioner is having 2 IPC cases, in that cases, he

was released on bail and also considering the period of incarceration

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

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 Principal

District Judge for NDPS Cases, Madurai, 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;

[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

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

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.