CRL OP No. 18624 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 18624 of 2026 Muniyammal ..Petitioner Vs State Rep. by its, The Inspector of Police, P-1, Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.55/2026. ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime No.55 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner: Mr.T.S.Srinivasan For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side) ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.02.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29(l) of NDPS Act @ u/s. 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) & 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.55 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18624 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 7 2. The case of the prosecution is that, after interception and investigation, the petitioner/A6 and the other accused were arrested for illegal possession of 10 kilograms and 550 grams of ganja from A1 (Arul) and 5 kilograms and 300 grams of ganja from A2. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are altogether nine accused and the case involves recovery of 21.500 kilograms of ganja. Though the recovery is of commercial quantity, there was absolutely no recovery from this petitioner. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is entitled to claim parity with A4, A5, A8 and A9, who have already been enlarged on bail. It is submitted that those accused were also implicated only on the basis of the confession statements of the co-accused. Even as against the present petitioner, there are no other incriminating materials except the confession statement. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that there are sufficient materials to establish the conscious possession of the petitioner through the recovery effected from A1 and A2, from whom commercial quantity of ganja was recovered. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the bail application. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18624 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 7 5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the bail order passed in favour of A4 (Eashwar), wherein this Court has extensively considered the case against the said accused in paragraph 6 to 8 which read as follow: “6. Admittedly, no contraband was recovered from the petitioners. Even according to the prosecution, the petitioners have been implicated only based on the confession statements of the arrested accused. As per the prosecution, the allegation against the petitioners is that they used to procure the small quantities of contraband from A1 and A2 and sell the same in the retail market. Except for the said confession statement, there are no independent materials to connect the petitioners with the conscious possession of 21.500 kgs of ganja recovered from A1 and A2. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that the co-accused, from whom no recovery was effected, have already been enlarged on bail. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), however, submitted that Gandhimathi/A8 has 11 previous cases and played a significant role in the alleged offence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners produced the medical records of A8 and submitted that she is suffering from a carotid artery aneurysm and has undergone treatment for the same. It was further submitted that Gandhimathi/A8 had voluntarily surrendered before the Court on 26.02.2026. 8. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, this Court finds that no recovery has been effected from either of the petitioners and that they have been implicated only based on the confession statements of the arrested accused. In the absence of any independent material connecting the petitioners with the contraband recovered from A1 and A2, this Court is of the prima facie view that the petitioners have overcome the rigorous under Section 37 of NDPS Act, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18624 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 7 Nadu reported in 2021 (4) SCC 1. Further, the co- accused against whom no recovery was effected, have already been enlarged on bail in Crl.OP.No.12111 of 2026, by order dated 08.06.2026. Considering the principle of parity, the absence of recovery from the petitioners, and the medical condition of Gandhimathi/A8, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail, subject to certain conditions.” 7. Though the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) opposed the present application, he could not place any materials except the confession statement, connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petitioner also stands on the same footing as A4, A5, A8 and A9, who have already been enlarged on bail. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and applying the principle of parity, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Special Judge, EC and NDPS Act Cases, Chennai, and subject to the following conditions: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18624 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 7 of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]; [f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 20-07-2026 NSL Note: 1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court. 2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18624 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 7 To 1. The Principal Special Judge, EC and NDPS Act Cases, Chennai. 2. Central Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai. 3. The Inspector of Police, P-1, Pulianthope Police Station, Chennai. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 18624 of 2026 __________ Page7 of 7 C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NSL CRL OP No. 18624 of 2026 20-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis