Santhanalakshmi, F/44,(A2) v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Santhanalakshmi ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Sathiyamangalam Police Station, Villupuram District.

(Crime No. 188 of 2025) ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS to Enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest at the hands of the Respondent Police in Crime No.188 of 2025, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sathiyamangalam Police Station, Villupuram District. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.A Bharani Chandar For Respondent(s):

Ms.J.R.Archana, GA (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest by the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 274, 275, 123 of BNS read with Section 24(1), 6 of COTPA Act and Section 77 of JJ Act in connection 188 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that based on the secret information, the respondent police conducted inspection, at that time, the A1

was found in possession of Hans, Cool Lip, Vimal Pan Masala and V1 Tobacco and the same were recovered from A1. Based on the confession statement of A1, police team conducted search at petitioner's house and recovered 17.40 kgs of banned tobacco products. Hence, the case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case by the respondent police. He further submitted that only based on the confession statement of A1, this petitioner has been implicated in this case, petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and on instruction submitted that alleged contraband were seized from the accused and three previous case in similar nature is pending against the petitioner. Hence, she opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the records.

6. Considering the submissions, the quantity of contraband involved in

this case, the bad antecedent of the petitioner and other aspects of this case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 19-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order JAI To

1. The Inspector of Police, Sathiyamangalam Police Station, Villupuram District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

JAI 19-02-2026