[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Ezhumalai @ Thangapandiyan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 April, 2026
CRL OP(MD). No. 1145 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Date : 16.04.2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
CRL OP(MD). No. 1145 of 2026
1.Ezhumalai @ Thangapandiyan
2.Sathish @ Sattipanai ...Petitioners/Accused
Vs
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Cuddalore NT Police Station,
Cuddalore.
(Crime No. 442 of 2025) ...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Althaf Sheriff
for M/s Ajmal Associates
Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS
PRAYER :-
For Bail in Cr.No. 442 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No. 1145 of 2026
ORDER :
The Court made the following order :-
The petitioners / Accused, who were arrested and remanded to
judicial custody on 05.10.2025 for the offences punishable under
Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act in Crime No. 442 of 2025 on
the file of the respondent police, seek bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that based on the secret
information, on 05.10.2025, when the respondent police were in patrol
duty, they found that the A1 was in illegal joint possession of 22 kgs of
ganja along with other accused including the petitioners. Hence the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this
case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the
prosecution. He would further submit that entire contraband was
recovered from A1 alone and based on the confession of co-accused
only, the petitioners have been arrayed as accused. He would further
submit that they have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on
05.10.2025. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the
defacto complainant, the case has been registered under Sections 8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act. He would further submit that the first
petitioner has 20 previous cases out of which two cases under NDPS Act
and the second petitioner has four previous cases, which are not similar
in nature. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and
the offences are grave in nature and hence, he strongly opposed to grant
bail to the petitioners.
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 considering the facts that entire
contraband was recovered from A1 alone and based on the confession of
co-accused only, the petitioners have been arrayed as accused and
though the first petitioner has 20 previous cases out of which two cases
under NDPS Act, which are not commercial quantity, in all cases bail
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was granted to the first petitioner and though the second petitioner has
four previous cases, the same are not similar in nature and in all cases,
bail was granted to the second petitioner also and considering the period
of incarceration undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to
grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:
[a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be
released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two
sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court
under EC Act, Thanjavur, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioners shall report before the learned
Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court
under EC Act, Thanjavur, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further
orders;
[c] the petitioners shall not commit any offence similar
to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, or of
the commission of which they are suspected;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during
investigation or trial;
[e] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with
law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners
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)
16.04.2026
apd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer,
Special Court under EC Act,
Thanjavur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Cuddalore NT Police Station,
Cuddalore.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P. DHANABAL, J
apd
ORDER
IN
Date : 16.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
