K Ravi Kumar @ Ravi v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Appanthirupathi

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 03/07/2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD)No.13169 of 2026 K.Ravi Kumar @ Ravi ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Appanthirupathi Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.149 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.Santhana Karuppu

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :-

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.149/2026 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 6(b), 24(1) of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 and Section 123 of BNS, in Crime No.149 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 24.06.2026, during vehicle checkup, the respondent Police received secret information and found that the first accused was selling banned tobacco products and recovered the same. On the basis of the confession of the first accused that he purchased the tobacco products from the petitioner, the petitioner was added as an accused in this case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and is no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that only on the basis of the confession of the first accused, the petitioner has been implicated in this case and there are no other independent material to prove the offence against the petitioner. He would also submit that the entire contraband has already been seized by the respondent Police from the first accused and nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner has no previous case and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned counsel for State (Crl. Side) would submit that the first accused sold the banned tobacco products and the respondent Police recovered the same from the first accused and that the contraband involved is 3 Kg and 150 grams of tobacco products. He would further submit that the first accused confessed to the crime and stated that he purchased the same from the petitioner. He further submitted that the investigation is pending and opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

¶6Considering the rival submissions on either side and the fact that the contraband involved is 3 Kg and 150 grams, which had been recovered from the first accused and only based on the confession of the first accused, the petitioner has been implicated in this case and that no previous case is pending against him, I am of the view that custodial interrogation is not necessary in this case and hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.5, Madurai, on condition that the petitioner shall 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 concerned and on further conditions that: [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 the interrogation. [c] the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. [d] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [f] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [g] 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]. [h] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

03.07.2026 Lm TO

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.5, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Appanthirupathi Police Station, Madurai District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.RAJASEKAR,J. Lm ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13169 of 2026 Date : 03/07/2026