Chansingh Rajipurohit v. State Rep By Its, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.07.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Chansingh Rajipurohit ... Petitioners Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Karipatty Police Station Salem District. (Crime No.271 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.271 of 2025 on the file of respondent Police.

For Petitioner :

M/s.D.Gnanasoundari For Respondent :

Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences under Section 6, 24(1) of Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, in Crime No.271 of 2025, on the file of the respondent, seeks anticipatory bail.

1/6

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused had illegally transported 342.165 kilograms of banned tobacco products, worth about Rs.11,83,200/-. Hence the case.

3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. He further submitted that the petitioner, to show his bonafide, without prejudice to his contentions, is ready to deposit a sum a considerable amount to the credit of any charitable organization. Hence, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner herein is arrayed as A1. He also submitted that the petitioner along with other accused had transported 342.165 kilograms of banned tobacco products in a car and met with an accident. He further submitted that this petitioner being the owner of the car, attempted to deflect the investigation by claiming that he had sold the car earlier and that the contraband was seized from the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing 2/6

on both sides and nature of the allegations, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to 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, Valapadi, on condition that petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) (Non refundable) to the credit of "Hosanna Boys Home, 3/117, Sekkodi, Padi (PO), Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri, Account No.

204901003263, IFSC: ICIC0002049, Marthandam Branch, ICICI Bank, Dharmapuri, Mobile No.

stand automatically cancelled;

[c] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [d] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial and they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required; [f] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the de facto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[g] the petitioner to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard;

[h] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance 4/6

with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283];

[i] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 28.07.2025 drl To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Valapadi.

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

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

drl 28.07.2025 6/6