Murali v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 09/06/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Murali ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep., By, The Inspector of Police, Thondi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No. 272 of 2023). ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 272 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police... For Petitioner : M/s. Vijayaraja.J., Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)

(C), 25 of NDPS Act, in Crime No.272 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 26.11.2025 at about

09.15 a.m., the Village Administrative Officer of M.R. Pattinam, along with the Village Assistant while on duty, found an abandoned four-wheeler Bolero pickup vehicle bearing Reg. No. TN-38-BZ-3420 along with 105 kg of ganja. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that this is the fourth anticipatory bail application and the earlier applications filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court and the co-accused (A6) was already released on anticipatory bail and no recovery was made from the petitioner and only based on the confession of the co-accused, the petitioner herein was arrayed as an accused. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that this is the fourth anticipatory bail petition and and the earlier applications filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court and the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and RC stands in the name of the petitioner's mother. The alleged contraband was found in the vehicle of the petitioner and the contraband involved in this case is a commercial quantity and the petitioner has 3 previous cases. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He would further submit that A3, A5 & A7 were already arrested and in custody and absconding charge sheet was filed against the petitioner, A2, A4 & A6 and hence, case has been split up in C.C.No.99 of 2025 and the co-accused was already released on anticipatory bail.

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

¶6Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and though the prosecution stated that the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity, no contraband was recovered from the petitioner and the entire contraband was recovered from other accused and based on the confession statement of the co-accused, the petitioner herein was arrayed as an accused and already investigation was completed and FIR has been registered on

26.11.2023 and thereafter, the respondent police has not taken any steps to secure the accused and even according to the prosecution, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, but RC of the vehicle stands in the name of the mother of the petitioner and except the petitioner, all other accused were arrested and released on bail and now, absconding charge sheet is pending against the petitioner and though the petitioner has 3 previous cases, all are not a similar kind of offences and in those cases, he was released on bail and already the co-accused was already released on anticipatory bail, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the Principal Special Court for Trial of NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai, on condition that the petitioner shall 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 Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the tria Court, daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [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 B.N.S.

09.06.2026 dss

To

1.The Principal Special Court for Trial of NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thondi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. P. DHANABAL,J DSS ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.8984 of 2026 Date : 09/06/2026