Muthu Manikandan vs State Of Tamil Nadu

P. Dhanabal, J

The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.05.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No. 253 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that based on the secret information, on 27.05.2026, when the respondent police were in patrol duty, the petitioner was in illegal possession of 1.213 kg of ganja. Hence the case.

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. He would further submit that he has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.05.2026.

Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner was in illegal possession of 1.213 kg of ganja, due to which the case has been registered under Sections 8, 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No. 253 of 2026. He would further submit that the petitioner is a history-sheeter and he has nine previous cases, out of which one case is similar 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 petitioner.

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

Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and considering the facts that the quantity involved in this case is not a commercial quantity and though as per prosecution, the petitioner is a history-sheet holder and having nine previous cases, out of which one case is similar in nature and all other cases are not similar in nature and in all cases, the petitioner was granted bail and also 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 Judge/Presiding Officer (FAC), Special Court under EC Act Cases, Thanjavur, 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 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].

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.