Ranjithkumar Vs The State of Tamilnadu rep by

Ranjithkumar vs The State of Tamilnadu rep by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 30, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1662017

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1662017
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Jun 30, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP(MD)/12811/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ranjithkumar

Respondent

The State of Tamilnadu rep by

Excerpt

.....sold 130 gms of ganja to the students. he further submitted that the petitioner is having two previous cases. hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.5. heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.6. considering the facts and circumstances of the case and theperiod of incarceration and also his antecedents and the quantity recovered is small quantity, 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.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) with two suretieseach for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned judicial magistrate no.ii, virudhunagar, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the learned judicial magistrate no.ii, virudhunagar, on all working days at 10.30 a.m., and 05.00 p.m., for a period of three weeks and 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, thelearned 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 5560]. [g] if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh fir can be registered.....

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 30/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Ranjithkumar, S/o. Alakarsamy No.3/64-4, East Street, Kumaralingapuram Virudhunagar District.. ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep By, The Inspector of Police Amathur Police Station, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.234 of 2026). ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Vijayendiran V, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- C32B Bail in Crime No.234 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner/Sole Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.06.2026 for the alleged offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act r/w 77 of Juvenile Justice Act, in Crime No.234 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 130 gms of Ganja, which was placed to sell to the students in the nearby area. Hence, the complaint has been registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner is innocent, he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation. He further submitted that the petitioner is incarceration from 14.06.2026 and the quantity involved in this case is not a

commercial quantity. He further submitted that though he is having two previous case, he has been falsely implicated in those cases. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Counsel for State of TN (Criminal Side) appearing

for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the petitioner illegally sold 130 gms of Ganja to the students. He further submitted that the petitioner is having two previous cases. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the

period of incarceration and also his antecedents and the quantity recovered is small quantity, 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.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties

each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar, on all working days at 10.30 a.m., and 05.00 p.m., for a period of three weeks and 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 5560]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(K R S J) 30.06.2026 vsg TO 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar.

2. The Officer-in-charge, Sub Jail, Virudhunagar. 3.The Inspector of Police Amathur Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. K. RAJASEKAR,J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.12811 of 2026 Date : 30/06/2026

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Ranjithkumar vs The State of Tamilnadu rep by Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar