Ravikumar v. State of Tamil Nadu the Inspector of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 28.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 13563 of 2026 Ravikumar

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Gulalur North Police Station, Theni District. (Crime No.252 of 2024)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ramesh for Mr.S.Kasirajan

Advocate

For Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 252 of 2024 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 18.12.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections8(C), 20(b),

(ii)(C), 29(1), 27A and 25 of NDPS Act, in Crime No.252 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that, on prior information, the respondent team mounted surveillance on the Cumbum–Kumuli Main Road near P.S.C. Theatre Junction and intercepted an Ertiga car bearing Registration No. TN-58-BW 9103. They found four persons in the car. Subsequently, they conducted a search and seizure and recovered 22.725 kgs. of ganja, which is a commercial quantity. Hence, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

¶3The 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 has also specifically made an averment in the additional counter, that the petitioner was forcibly taken by the police personnel, namely, Santha Kumar and Udaya Kumar, on

17.12.2024 at about 4.00 p.m. from his agricultural field. They have also secured the phone numbers of the said police personnel, and their presence has also been captured in the CCTV footage installed in the farmland. Thereafter, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Apart from that, he also contended that one of the co-accused, who is similarly placed, namely, Dinesh Kumar, was granted bail by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD).No.10501 of 2026, dated 09.06.2026, and since the petitioner is also similarly placed, he prays to grant bail on the ground of parity.

4.The learned Counsel for the State of TN (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the reliance placed on the CCTV footage cannot be considered at this stage. He further submitted that the petitioner was found travelling in the car from which the ganja was seized. He further submitted that the petitioner is also having four previous cases, out of which one is similar in nature, and therefore opposed the grant of bail.

¶5For which, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was not involved in any of the earlier cases. Only three cases are IPC offences, and though one case is registered against the petitioner in Crime No.144 of 2025, it relates only to a small quantity, and he is already on bail in the said case.

¶6This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶7I have carefully considered the submissions and also perused the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10501 of 2026, wherein, while considering the bail application of A2, this Court, in paragraph No.6, observed as follows: "6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and though as per prosecution, the quantity of contraband involved in this case is a commercial quantity, the contraband were recovered through separate mahazar from different persons and the same has been clubbed together and treated as commercial quantity. As far as this petitioner is concerned, the alleged contraband recovered from him is 3.785 kgs and the same is not a commercial quantity. Considering further the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:"

8.Though there is a specific accusation made by the petitioner regarding he is having been illegally taken into custody by the police, that too by specifically naming the police personnel and mentioning the timing, the respondent has not come forward to specifically counter the same. They have simply avoided countering by denying the allegation. However, the fact remains is that the co-accused, who travelled along with the petitioner, has been granted bail by this Court in the order cited above. Though it is stated that the petitioner is also having one previous case, it relates only to a small quantity, and he is already on bail. Since the co-accused, who is similarly placed, has been granted bail by this Court, on the ground of parity and the grounds of bail raised is apply to the petitioner, he is also entitled to bail. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions. [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for trial of NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for trial of NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, at 10.30 a.m., on all working days, 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 51730]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(K R S J)

28.07.2026 TM To

1.The Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for trial of NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Gulalur North Police Station, Theni District. (Crime No.252 of 2024)

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K. RAJASEKAR, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 13563 of 2026 Date : 28.07.2026