Pravinkumar v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep Through the Inspector of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 13.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 13853 of 2026

1.Pravinkumar

2.Vengadesan

3.Sivasubramaniyan

...petitioners

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Nagapattinam Town Police Station, Nagapattinam District. (Crime No.168 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For petitioners : Mr.S.Balaji

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. 168 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / Accused, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 21.06.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)

(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.168 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on prior information, the respondent police went to the spot and intercepted the accused and found that they are in possession of 1.200 kilograms of ganja, with an intention to sell the same to the public. Hence, the FIR has been registered by the respondent police.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that since the petitioners are having some bad antecedents, this false case has been foisted against them for the statistical purpose. The contraband involved in this case is not commercial quantity. Hence, Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable to this case. He is in custody from

21.06.2026 and ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioners.

¶4The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the first and second petitioners are having three previous cases each and the second petitioner is having four previous cases, all are under IPC offences. The investigation is still pending and the petitioner has no previous case. He opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners.

¶5This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offences, though the petitioners have some previous cases, the quantity involved in this case is not fall under the definition of commercial quantity, hence, Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not applicable to this case, and also considering the period of incarceration, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to certain conditions. [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the learned Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur, at 10.30 a.m., on all working days, for a period of three weeks, thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioners 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 petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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)

13.07.2026 TM To

1.The Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court under Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Nagapattinam Town Police Station, Nagapattinam District. (Crime No.168 of 2026)

3.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Pudukkottai.

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

K. RAJASEKAR, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 13853 of 2026 Date : 13.07.2026