Gopinathan v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 07.08.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD)No.16619 of 2026 Gopinathan ... Petitioner / Sole Accused

Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Nainarkovil Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.144 of 2026) ... Respondent / Complainant PRAYER :-Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.144 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rajiv Gandhi, Advocate

For Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Sole Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.07.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 132 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) and 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in Crime No.144 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that, acting on secret information, the respondent police found the accused in conscious possession of 1.300 kilograms of ganja. It is further alleged that the accused was in possession of the said contraband with the intention of selling it to general public. Hence, the FIR has been registered by the respondent police.

¶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 contraband involved in this case is not commercial quantity. Hence, Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable to this case. Since the petitioner has 3 previous cases, he was implicated in this case falsely. He is in custody from 11.07.2026 and ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

¶4The learned Counsel for State (Criminal Side) appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the investigation in this case is still pending. The petitioner has three previous cases and if he is released out of bail, again he will indulge in similar activities. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

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

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the fact that the quantity of contraband involved is not a commercial quantity and, therefore, the rigour of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is not attracted, and also taking into account the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, 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 Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the jurisdictional Magistrate at 10.30 a.m., on all working days, for a period of three weeks, thereafter as and when required for interrogation before the respondent police; [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.

07.08.2026 pal To

1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai.

2.The Officer-in-Charge, District Jail, Ramanathapuram.

3.The Inspector of Police, Nainarkovil Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLoOP(MD).oNo.16619oofo2026 oK.RAJASEKARoo,Jo. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopal ORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.16619oofo2026 Dateoo:o07.08.2026