Hariharan vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2055 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2055 Mad
Judgement Date : 20 April, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

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

                                                                                Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6946 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. 6946 of 2026

                Hariharan                                                  ...Petitioner
                                                    Vs

                State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
                The Inspector of Police,
                Kenikkarai Police Station
                Ramanathapuram District.
                (Crime No.491 of 2025)                                     ...Respondent/Complainant

                                  For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramachandran for Mr.T.Veerakumar
                                                   Advocate.
                                  For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
                                                   Additional Public Prosecutor

                      PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS

                PRAYER :-

                    For Bail in Cr.No. 491 of 2025 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 24.12.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w.

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

20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.491 of 2025 on the file of

the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.12.2025 at about 07.00 a.m,

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

found the petitioner along with other accused in possession of 542 Kilograms

of Ganja Leaves, flowers and buds. 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. Only based on the confession statement of the co-

accused this petitioner was implicated in this case. Co-accused has been

released on bail. 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. The petitioner procured the contraband

materials and stored the same in A4's house. A3 is still absconding. Based on

the confession statement of the co-accused this petitioner was implicated. They

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

are planned to transport the Ganja through the petitioner's boat. Investigation is

still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

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, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, no

contraband was recovered from the petitioner, even according to the

prosecution case the contraband is supposed to transport with the boat of this

petitioner, no previous case is pending against the petitioner, the entire

contraband was recovered from the house of A4, 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 Additional District and Sessions

Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for E.C. and NDPS Court

Cases, Pudukottai, 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].