[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Jaison vs The Inspector Of Police, on 30 April, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.8808 of 2026
Jaison ... Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Madhavaram Police Station,
Kolathur District. ... Respondent(s)
[Crime No.564 of 2025]
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023,
to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.564 of 2025, on the file
of the respondent.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.B.R.Jayaprakash Narayan
For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on
01.09.2025 for the alleged offence under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 22(c), 25 & 29(1)
of NDPS Act, 1985, in Crime No.564 of 2025, on the file of the respondent
police, seeks bail.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with the other
accused, was found to be in possession of 23 nos of MDMA tablets, weighing
11.60 grams, 7 nos of LSD stamps, weighing 0.12 mg, 7.3 grams of
Methamphetamine for sale. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner
is innocent and he has been falsely roped in this case. He would further submit
that the petitioner has no bad antecedents and he has been under incarceration
since 01.09.2025. He would also submit that there is no recovery from this
petitioner. Hence, he prays for the grant of bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would oppose the bail
application and submit that one mobile phone alone was recovered from the
petitioner, wherein the call detail records shows the petitioner had frequent
contact with the other accused. He would further submit that this the third bail
application filed by the petitioner and the earlier bail applications were
dismissed by this Court. He would however submit that the petitioner has no
previous case.
5. It is seen that there are about 7 accused, in which, the petitioner is
arrayed as A7. Even according to the prosecution, there was no recovery from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the petitioner and he has no previous antecedents. The respondent has recovered
a cell phone from this petitioner and the call detail records shows the petitioner
had frequent contact with the other accused. Except this allegation, no other
allegation is against the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was not found in
possession of any contraband and other accused persons, namely A1 to A6 were
in possession of commercial quantity of contraband, such as, 23 nos of MDMA
tablets, weighing 11.60 grams, 7 nos of LSD stamps, weighing 0.12 mg, 7.3
grams of Methamphetamine, which are banned by the Government.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the period of
incarceration of the petitioner since 01.09.2025 and the fact that there is no
recovery from this petitioner and the petitioner has no bad antecedents, this
Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, with certain conditions:
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his
executing bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two
blood sureties each for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Madhavaram, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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, until further orders;
[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 take
appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with
law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner
released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself,
as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs.
State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];
[f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may
be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
8. It is made clear that the other accused persons cannot avail any remedy
on the strength of this order, since this Court consider the bail application only
on the ground that the petitioner was not in possession of any contraband and
the respondent recovered only a cell phone from the petitioner and further, the
petitioner has no previous antecedents.
30.04.2026
ata
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram.
2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal.
3. The Inspector of Police, Madhavaram Police Station,
Kolathur District.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
ata
30.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
