Sakthivel v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Palanichettypatti

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16.07.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 14559 of 2026 Sakthivel

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Palanichettypatti Police Station, Theni District. (Crime No.408 of 2026)

...Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Kandasamy Sriram

Advocate

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 408 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.07.2026, for the offences punishable under Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act, in Crime No.408 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is ranked as A3 in this case. A4 was initially intercepted and found in possession of some of banned tobacco products. Based on the confession statement of A4, it was revealed that the petitioner (A3) was the supplier of the said contraband. Accordingly, the petitioner was taken custody by the police, and from his possession 155 packets of banned tobacco products were seized. Thereafter, based on the confession statement of A3, A1 and A2 were arrested. From their possession, 171.687 kilograms of banned tobacco products were recovered and seized. Following the said recovery, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that he is in custody from 07.07.2026 and ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

¶4The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and reported that two previous cases, similar in nature. Investigation in this case is still pending. This Court has also dismissed the bail application of the co-accused. Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶5This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶6This Court has carefully gone through the FIR and the connected materials. A perusal of the FIR shows that the quantity allegedly recovered from A3 and A4 has not been specifically stated therein. However, the records disclose that from A4, 29 pouches, each containing 15 small pouches of banned tobacco products, were seized, and from A3, 150 packets of banned tobacco products were recovered. A careful perusal of the statements recorded during the investigation further reveals that A3 and A4 have stated that they used to purchase the banned tobacco products from A1 and A2. There is nothing on record to indicate that A3 and A4 were aware of the total quantity of contraband in the possession of A1 and A2. Therefore, the quantity recovered from A1 and A2 cannot be clubbed with the quantity recovered from A3 and A4. Though the petitioner is stated to be involved in two previous cases, considering the quantity recovered from the petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the case and the period of incarceration, I am 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.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni, at 10.30 a.m., on all working days, for a period of three weeks, 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 51730]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(K R S J)

16.07.2026 TM To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Theni.

2.The Inspector of Police, Palanichettypatti Police Station, Theni District. (Crime No.408 of 2026)

3.The Superintendent, Thekkampatti Jail, Theni.

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

K. RAJASEKAR, J. TM ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 14559 of 2026 Date : 16.07.2026