Krishan Lal v. State Of Tamil Nadu,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP NO. 30100 of 2025 Krishan Lal Petitioner Vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police P.S. Katpadi, Vellore District.
In Crime No. 357 of 2025.
Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest pending investigation in Cr.No. 357 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.Rajad Rai Dva For C.Santhoshkumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ----
O R D E R
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 111 and 123 of BNSS Act, 1/6
2023 in Crime No. 357 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The allegation against the petitioner is that on 18.09.2025, on the basis of the information received, after recording the same, the police party intercepted A1 to A7 and recovered 100 Tecdol. On interrogation revealed that the petitioner had purchased the same from some other accused and the same was transported from Delhi to Tamil Nadu and the same was misused for intoxication and sold to various schools and college students. After investigation, the police party went to the "Arlis Healthcare Private Limited" New Delhi, which was run by the petitioner and about 50 boxes of Tecdol 100 Mg medicines were seized from the petitioner. Hence, the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner and others.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running licensed medical shop at New Delhi. On 19.09.2025, the police 2/6
party came in the medical shop in civilian dress and demanded availability of certain tablets for staffs and after seeing the available stock, it was immediately seized. The police have also attempted to arrest the petitioner. Due to old age of the petitioner, the police party were not able to brought him to Chennai. He further submits that the tablets are being sold only based on prescription and without medical prescription no tablets were sold to any person. The petitioner has no nexus with any of the arrested accused. He runs the medical shop at New Delhi by following the rules and regulations. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submits that totally 20 accused involved in this case. The petitioner is arrayed as A20. A probe revealed from the arrested persons, that the petitioner had also actively involved in illegal sale of the tablets, which were reached to the Tamil Nadu State from New Delhi and the same was being misused. He further submits 3/6
that investigation is pending and however, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsels and perused the materials available on record.
6.Considering the fact that the petitioner's pharmacy shop is trading in tablets; possession of 9400 tablets in his shop could not be considered as illegal possession since he is having licence to deal with the same; Earlier summon 35(3) BNSS issued to the petitioner and that though investigation is pending, there is no material produced before this Court that this petitioner intentionally involved in illegal sale of seized tablets from arrested accused; Hence, I am of the view that custodial interrogation is not required in this case and inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
4/6
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, Katpadi, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:
(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;
[b] 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 5/6
identity;
[c] the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police on everyday at 10.30 am for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.
[d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance 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];
[e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 05.11.2025 MSM 6/6
To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sholinghur.
2.The Inspector of Police Sholinghur Police Station Ranipet District In Crime No. 315 of 2025.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
7/6
K.RAJASEKAR , J.
MSM CRL OP NO. 30100 of 2025 8/6
05.11.2025 9/6