Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Arunkumar Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Arunkumar vs The State of Tamilnadu

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 03, 2026
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1663386

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRL OP(MD)/13292/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arunkumar

Respondent

The State of Tamilnadu

Excerpt

.....illegally trafficked 1.150 kgs of ganja. he further submitted that the petitioner has no 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 the petitioner has no previous cases, quantity recovered is a intermediate quantity and section 37 of the ndps act is not applicable to this case, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. [a] accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be releasedon 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 additional district judge, special court under the essential commodities (e.c) act court, thanjavur, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and 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 5560]. [g] if the accused.....

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03/07/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Arunkumar, S/o.Ayyappan, No.1417/1, Atrangarai Street, Koranattu Karuppur, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District.. ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The State of TamilnaduRep By, The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam West Police Station, Thanjavur District. Cr.No.294 of 2026.. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner :Mr. Sankar. S, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- C-32B.For Bail in Cr.No.294 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)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 in Crime No.294 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused were found in illegal possession of 1.150 kgs of Ganja for the purpose of sale. Hence, the complaint has been registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner is innocent and 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 abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He further submitted that the petitioner is incarceration from 14.06.2026 and the quantity involved in this case is a intermediate quantity and Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable to this case. 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 trafficked 1.150 Kgs of Ganja. He further submitted that the petitioner has no 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 the petitioner has no previous cases, quantity recovered is a intermediate quantity and Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable to this case, 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 Additional District Judge, Special Court under the Essential Commodities (E.C) Act Court, Thanjavur, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and 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 5560]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(K R S J) 03.07.2026 vsg TO 1.The learned Additional District Judge, Special Court under the Essential Commodities (E.C) Act Court, Thanjavur.

2. The Superintendent, District Prison, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam West Police Station, Thanjavur District.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.13292 of 2026 Date : 03/07/2026

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial