Arasu v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Arasu S/o Chinnadurai, No.1/205, Santhu Street, Natham Village, Kaali, Mayiladuthurai Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District.

...Petitioner/Accused 1

Vs The State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Manalmedu Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District.

(Crime No. 113 /2026) ...Complainant/ Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.113 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner:

Mr. C T Saravanan For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 123 of BNS r/w 6 r/w 24(1) of the Prohibition of Advertisements and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply, and Distribution Act, 2003, in Crime No.113 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner/A1 is that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 30 pockets of Hans Chaap tobacco for sales and commercial purposes. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution, and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that the value of the banned tobacco products is Rs.300/- (Rupees Three Hundred Only). He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that two previous cases have been registered against the petitioner. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

6. Though the present case is of a small quantity of possession of banned tobacco products worth of Rs.300/- (Rupees Three Hundred Only), the petitioner has already been charged with two similar offences in the years 2023 and 2025, which clearly demonstrates that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 20-04-2026 dk

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate - I, Mayiladuthurai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Manalmedu Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

dk CRL OP No. 9722 of 2026 20-04-2026