Narendaran vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police
2026 Latest Caselaw 2586 Mad

Madras High Court

Narendaran vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 14 May, 2026

                                                                              CRL OP No. 12656 of 2026


                                  sIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                   DATED: 14-05-2026
                                                       CORAM
                                     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
                                               CRL OP No. 12656 of 2026
                Narendaran
                S/o. Parthasarathy
                                                                                    ..Petitioner(s)
                                                          Vs
                State Rep. by Inspector of Police
                P-3, Vysarpadi Police Station,
                Chennai.
                Crime No. 172/2026.
                                                                                  ..Respondent(s)

                Prayer: The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. to
                enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime No. 172 of 2026 on
                the file of the respondent.
                              For Petitioner(s):       Mr.M.Manimaran

                              For Respondent(s):       Mr.V.J.Priyadarsana,
                                                       Government Advocate (Crl.Side)


                                                       ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

14.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of

the NDPS Act, 1985, in Cr. No.172 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police,

seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the other

accused was found in illegal possession of 1.300 kgs of Ganja for sale. Hence __________ Page1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the

respondent police have registered a false case against the petitioner. The

petitioner is under judicial custody since 14.02.2026. He further submits that the

petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as

alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that

the petitioner along with the other accused was found in illegal possession of

1.300 Kgs of Ganja for sale. He further submits that there is one previous case

of similar in nature pending against the petitioner and if he is released on bail,

he may abscond and would commit similar kind of offences in future as well.

Hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature

of the offences charged against the accused and also the fact that the quantity

seized does not fall under the category of commercial quantity and that though

there is one previous case pending against the petitioner, he was released on bail

in that case and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the __________ Page2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

petitioner and the fact that the contraband was not recovered from this

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 X Metropolitan Magistrate

at Egmore, Chennai, and on further conditions that:

[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 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 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 __________ Page3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 B.N.S.2023.

14-05-2026 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 Inspector of Police P-3, Vysarpadi Police Station, Chennai.

Crime No. 172/2026.

2. The X Metropolitan Magistrate at Egmore, Chennai.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4.The Superintendent, Puzhal -II, Central Prison, Chenani.

__________ Page4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.DHANABAL, J.

ssa

14-05-2026

__________ Page5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis