V.Vanitha vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2027 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2027 Mad
Judgement Date : 20 April, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

V.Vanitha vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ... on 20 April, 2026

                                                                                 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6321 of 2026

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

                                                   Date : 20.04.2026

                                                       PRESENT

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

                                            CRL OP(MD). No. 6321 of 2026

                V.Vanitha                                                   ...Petitioner
                                                      Vs

                State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
                The Inspector of Police,
                Uthamapalayam PEW Police Station,
                Theni District.
                (Crime No.42 of 2026)                                       ...Respondent/Complainant

                                  For Petitioner : Mr.M.Iniyavan
                                                   Advocate.
                                  For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
                                                   Additional Public Prosecutor

                      PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS

                PRAYER :-

                    For Bail in Cr.No. 42 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

                ORDER :

The Court made the following order :-

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

custody on 08.02.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w.

20(b)(ii)(c), and 25, 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.42 of 2026 on the file of

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

the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.02.2026 at about 08.30 p.m.,

on secret information the respondent police went to the scene of occurrence and

intercepted the vehicle and found the petitioner along with other accused in

possession of 20.755 Kgs. of Ganja. 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. There is no direct

recovery from this petitioner. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent

would submit that the offence are grave in nature. The contraband recovered in

this case is commercial quantity. There are two Cars. 6 kgs. of Ganja has been

recovered from this petitioner. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail

to the petitioner.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on

record.

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

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on

either side, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner,

though the prosecution stated that the quantity involved is commercial quantity,

in two Cars, on separate mahazar from separate individuals the contraband are

recovered separately, as far as this petitioner is concerned, the prosecution

recovered only 6 kgs. of Ganja, which is not commercial quantity and the

contraband recovered from two different vehicles and clubbed together and

thereby, the prosecution treated as commercial quantity, that though the

petitioner has another previous case for the similar nature of the offence, in that

case also no contraband was recovered, she was arrested only on the basis of

the confession statement of the co-accused 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 each for a like sum to the

satisfaction of the learned District and Sessions Judge/Presiding

Officer, Special Court for E.C. and NDPS Court Cases, Madurai, and

on further conditions that:

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

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police,

daily at 10.30 a.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 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].