Deepakraja v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Palamedu

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J. This matter is listed under the caption 'for being mentioned' at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶2The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the section relating to the offence under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 have been mistakenly omitted and may kindly be incorporated accordingly.

¶3In view of the same, Sections 52 and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 shall be added in para 1 of the order dated 02.04.2026 passed in this petition.

¶4Barring the above, there are no other modifications to order dated

02.04.2026 passed in this petition.

¶5Registry shall issue fresh order copy to the parties concerned incorporating the aforesaid modification.

09.04.2026 sm Note: Issue order copy on 10.04.2026.

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J. Sm Dated

09.04.2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 02/04/2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI CRL OP(MD). No. 6478 of 2026

1.Deepakraja

2.Ajaykumar

...Petitioners Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Palamedu Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.48 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioners:Mr.B.Micheal Sebastin

For Respondent :Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 48 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / A1 and A2, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

08.03.2026 for the offences punishable under Section 275, 123 of BNS and Section 7 and 20(1) of the Cigerettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 in Crime No. 48 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on

08.03.2026, based on the secret information, when the defacto complainant/police were conducting raid, they found that the petitioners were in illegal possession of 399.89kgs of tobacco products. Hence the case.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the tobacco products were seized from the petitioners and they have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.03.2026. Therefore, prayed to grant bail for the petitioners.

¶4The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the first petitioner has one previous case and the second petitioner has no previous case.

¶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 quantity involved in this case and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute

a

bond

for

a

sum

of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of

the

learned

Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [c] the petitioners 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 petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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.

02.04.2026 Rmk To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti.

2.The Officer-in charge, District Jail, Dindigul.

3.The Inspector of Police, Palamedu Police Station, Madurai District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J Rmk ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 6478 of 2026 Date : 02.04.2026