Mohamed Harish v. The State of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 21.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 14942 of 2026 Mohamed Harish

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kenikkarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.572 of 2024)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : 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. 572 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 30.06.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 22(b) and 25 of NDPS Act, in Crime No.572 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner joining hands with the other accused involved in illegal possession and transportation of 13 grams of methamphetamine and originally A1 to A2 were arrested for possession of the same. On the basis of the confession statement recorded from them, this petitioner was formally arrested on 30.06.2026.

¶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 would further submit that the it is a case of formal arrest. The contraband is not commercial quantity. Hence, Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable to this case. He is in custody from 30.06.2026 and ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

¶4The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the investigation in this case has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed before the concerned Court. The petitioner has two previous cases, similar in nature. He is arrested only recently. If he is released out of bail, again he will indulge in similar activities. He opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶5The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submitted that the alleged occurrence was taken place in the year 2024. But, only based on the confession of the co-accused, the petitioner was arrested recently. Though it is stated that the petitioner has two previous cases, they are old cases and prior to the occurrence.

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

¶7Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offences, the quantity involved in this case is not commercial quantity, hence, Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not applicable to this case, it is also the case of the year 2024 and only formal arrest has been made recently, investigation has also been completed and charge sheet has also been filed and also considering the period of incarceration, I am 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 Additional District and sessions Judge, Additional Special Court for Trial of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act Cases, Pudukkottai, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the Additional District and sessions Judge, Additional Special Court for Trial of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act Cases, Pudukkottai, at

10.30 a.m., on all working days, for a period of three weeks, thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [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)

21.07.2026 TM To

1.The Additional District and sessions Judge, Additional Special Court for Trial of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act Cases, Pudukkottai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kenikkarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.572 of 2024)

3.The Superintendent, District Prison, Pudukkottai.

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

K. RAJASEKAR, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 14942 of 2026 Date : 21.07.2026