Sathik Ali v. State Rep By Its, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Sathik Ali ... Petitioner Vs.

The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Shevapet Police Station, Salem District Crime No.278 of 2025.

... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.278 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For petitioner :

Mr. C.Deepak Kumar For Respondent :

Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 112(2) of BNS, Section 77 of 1/6

Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 6, 24(1) of Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 in Crime No.278 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that based on a secret information received by the respondent police, Accused-1 was caught on the spot by the respondent police who was in possession of 540.96 kgs of prohibited Tobacco products in a car. Further, in the investigation, it was found that the petitioner was also involved in the offence. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and based on the confession of the Accused-1, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is ready to abide any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that Accused-1 was caught by the respondent police in possession of 540.96 kgs of prohibited Tobacco products and the Accused-1 was arrested and bailed out. Further, in the investigation, it was found that the petitioner was also involved in the offence. However, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/6

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either sides, nature of allegation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-3, Salem on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on proof of payment of deposits, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[a] if the petitioner fails to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled;

3/6

[b] The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the Application for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation. [d] The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.

4/6

[h] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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 5560]; [i] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

30.07.2025 shl To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-3, Salem.

2. The Inspector of Police, Shevapet Police Station, Salem District

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

shl 30.07.2025 6/6