Chandan Singh v. The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Chandan Singh ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep by The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

(Crime No. 388 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.388 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Deeraj For Respondent : Mr. P. Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 123 BNS, Sections 7 & 20(1) of the Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Acts, 2003 and Section 4(1) (C) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) 1/4

Act, 2024 in Crime No.388 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused was found in illegal possession of 160.875 kgs of banned tobbaco products and 15 packets of rum. Hence, a case has been registered against the petitioner.

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

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the petitioner has no previous cases pending against him. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is seen that though there is no previous case against the petitioner, the offence falls under the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act. Considering the nature of the offence, this Court is of the view that it is not desirable to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, as the same may embolden him to commit 2/4

similar offences in future.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 24.03.2026 DRL To 1.The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3/4

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

DRL Crl.OP.No.7328 of 2026 24.03.2026 4/4