Monisha Sheela v. Union of India

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 15.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Monisha Sheela ...Petitioner/Accused

Vs Union of India rep. by the Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Madurai Sub-Regional Unit, No.13/14, Saraswathi Nathi Street, Mahatma Gandhi Nagar Madurai. (F.No.DRI/CZU/MDU/VIII/48/ENQ-01/INT-01/2024)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.SMA.Jinnah

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in F.No.DRI/CZU/MDU/VIII/48/ENQ-01/INT-01/2024 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 04.03.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 22(c), 25, 27A, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act in F.No.DRI/CZU/MDU/VIII/48/ENQ-01/INT-01/2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that based on the secret information, on 01.03.2024, A1 was identifed and intercepted by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Madurai, and seized 31.05 kgs of contraband. Based on the confession, the respondent searched the house of A1 at Chennai and there was no recovery. However, based on the confession of the petitioner/A2/wife of A1, the respondent found two boxes from somewhere else, which contains 6145 grams of contraband and since this petitioner tried to destroy the evidence by throwing away the contraband, which was kept by A1 in his house, the petitioner has been arrayed as accused. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and she was falsely implicated in this case and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that no contraband was recovered from this petitioner. He would further submit that she has been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.03.2024. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioner.

¶4The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the case has been registered under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 22(c), 25, 27A, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act in F.No.DRI/CZU/MDU/VIII/48/ENQ-01/INT-01/2024. He would further submit that the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity and based on the confession of this petitioner, the contraband was recovered and this is fifth bail application and there is no change in circumstances and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

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

¶6Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, nature of offence, and considering the fact that the quantity involved in this case is a commercial quantity and based on the confession of this petitioner alone, the contraband was recovered and there is no change in circumstances and taking into considering the gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

(P D B J)

15.04.2026 apd To

1.The Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Madurai Sub-Regional Unit, No.13/14, Saraswathi Nathi Street, Mahatma Gandhi Nagar Madurai.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLeOP(MD).eNo.e18479eofe2025 oooooP.oDHANABAL,oJ oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooapd oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.o18479oofo2025 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooDateoo:o15.04.2026