IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO . 106 OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.20539/2025 RAJA APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. Appellant has been chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 8(c), 12D(b)(ii) (C), 25, 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet has been filed and trial is yet to commence. In all, there are thirty-one witnesses.

HARPREET KAUR D 18 a : t 0 e 5 : : 2 3 0 2 2 I 6 S . T 01.12 1 Reason:

4. The case of the prosecution is that on a secret information received, the police on 01.08.2024 at about 08:00 am intercepted a lorry in Madurai and found that A1 to A3 were in the said vehicle and were carrying 120 kgs of Ganja in four gunny bags and as such they were apprehended and vehicle was seized. Based on the co-accused statement which was to the effect that the said contraband was to be smuggled by the appellant therein A8 and A9 (Mr. Chandru) to Sri Lanka. They were arraigned as accused in the chargesheet. The application filed by appellant came to be rejected and the regular bail sought was refused.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we notice that the co-accused has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2025. In fact, petitioner therein namely, Jeyaraj Pandian was said to be the owner of the said lorry which was intercepted and seized and he had been arraigned as an accused in the very same chargesheet. The CDR reports were also relied upon by the prosecution in the said case to oppose the grant of bail to Mr. Jeyaraj Pandian. However, this Court by the aforesaid order opined that CDR by itself would not be a ground on which the continued detention of the appellant would be warranted, particularly, in the backdrop of investigation having already been concluded. Though, the medical condition of the appellant therein also swayed in the mind of this Court and in stricto sensu, parity cannot be pressed into service, the fact remains that solely on the co- accused statement and CDR report, the prosecution intends to stave off the prayer of the appellant herein for grant of bail. There being no seizure from the conscious possession of the contraband from the appellant, we are of the considered view that continued incarceration of the appellant would not be warranted. Hence, the appeal is allowed. Appellant is ordered to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional Court may impose including the condition of appearing before the jurisdictional trial court on all dates of hearing unless exempted specifically by the said Court.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

.................J.

(ARAVIND KUMAR)

.................J.

(PRASANNA B. VARALE)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 07, 2026.

ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

No(s).20539/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-09-2025 in CRLOP(MD) No.9591/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai]

RAJA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondent(s)

FOR ADMISSION IA No. 328293/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

IA No. 333381/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES Date : 07-01-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Renjith B. Marar, Adv.

Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, AOR Mr. Arun Poomulli, Adv.

Mr. Harsh Vardhan Shyam, Adv.

Mr. Jeby Mather, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.

Criminal Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order placed on the file.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(NEHA GUPTA) (AVGV RAMU)

COURT MASTER (SH)