Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11854 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 11854 of 2026 M.Suresh ...Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ramginagar Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District. (Crime No.228 of 2026) ...Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Ms.N.Ratchaka Advocate For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 228 of 2026 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 24.05.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.228 of 2026 on the file of the 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11854 of 2026 respondent police, seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.05.2026, on secret information the respondent police went to the scene of occurrence and they found that the accused persons are in possession of 8.275 kilo grams of ganja. 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. This case was registered only for statistical purpose. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. The quantity involved in this case is not commercial quantity. The petitioner has 8 previous cases. Out of which 4 cases are similar in nature, but, under not commercial quantity. Investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11854 of 2026 record. 6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, the quantity involved in this case is not commercial quantity, though the petitioner has 8 previous cases including four cases are under NDPS Act Case, which are not under commercial quantity, and in all those cases he was already granted bail 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 Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, 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 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11854 of 2026 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. (P D B J) 22.06.2026 TM To 1.The Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11854 of 2026 2.The Inspector of Police, Ramginagar Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District. (Crime No.228 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, District Jail, Tiruchirappalli. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11854 of 2026 P. DHANABAL, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 11854 of 2026 Date : 22.06.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11854 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP(MD). No. 11854 of 2026 M.Suresh ...Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ramginagar Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District. (Crime No.228 of 2026) ...Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Ms.N.Ratchaka Advocate For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 228 of 2026 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 24.05.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.228 of 2026 on the file of the 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11854 of 2026 respondent police, seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.05.2026, on secret information the respondent police went to the scene of occurrence and they found that the accused persons are in possession of 8.275 kilo grams of ganja. 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. This case was registered only for statistical purpose. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. The quantity involved in this case is not commercial quantity. The petitioner has 8 previous cases. Out of which 4 cases are similar in nature, but, under not commercial quantity. Investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11854 of 2026 record. 6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, the quantity involved in this case is not commercial quantity, though the petitioner has 8 previous cases including four cases are under NDPS Act Case, which are not under commercial quantity, and in all those cases he was already granted bail 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 Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, 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 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11854 of 2026 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. (P D B J) 22.06.2026 TM To 1.The Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11854 of 2026 2.The Inspector of Police, Ramginagar Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District. (Crime No.228 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, District Jail, Tiruchirappalli. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11854 of 2026 P. DHANABAL, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 11854 of 2026 Date : 22.06.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis