Nilesh Kumar v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Nilesh Kumar S/o.Antar Lal, No. 206, Rebariyo ca Was, Ananwloj Post and District, State of Rajasthan - 343 042.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police Maduranthakam Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

Crime No 498 of 2025 ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.498 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner(s):

Ms.B.Sasikala For Respondent(s):

Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 123, 274 and 275 of BNS (Sections 328, 272 and 273 of IPC) read with Section 24(1) of Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, in Crime No.498 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was in illegal possession of 10,985 pouches weighing 53 kgs of banned tobacco products. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, she prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent police would strongly oppose the petition on the ground that the petitioner is the supplier of tobacco to various vendors, and he further submitted that on the day of search, 53 kgs of banned tobacco products were seized from him.

4. While considering the factual position of the case, though this is the third anticipatory bail petition, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), since the quantity seized is high and the petitioner is alleged to be the supplier, and if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he would be emboldened to commit similar offences in future. In such view of

the matter, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

5. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 04-03-2026 cda To 1.The Inspector of Police Maduranthakam Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

cda 04-03-2026