V.Vanitha vs State Of Tamil Nadu

P. Dhanabal, J

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 the respondent police, seeks bail.

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

[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.