Kurukuvel Iyyanar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By The Senior Intelligence Officer,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Karkuvel Iyyanar

...Petitioner

Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Trichy Regional Unit, Cantonment, Trichy F.No.DRI/ZU/23/2025-ADD/JD-IO/o ADG-DRI-ZU/Chennai

...Respondent

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Ramaguru For Respondent : Mr.S.Gurumoorthy Special Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in F.No.DRI/ZU/23/2025-ADD/JD-IO/o ADG-DRI-ZU/Chennai on the file of the respondent 1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 135, 135A r/w 104 of Customs Act, 1962, in F.No.DRI/ ZU/ 23/ 2025-ADD/JD-I-O/oADG-DRI-ZUCHENNAI on the file of the respondent, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.02,2026, on secret information, the respondent conducted raid at the home of one Sathya in Kodangipatti Village, near Lalpettai in Karur District and found 5.5 tons of redwood logs and seized the same. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that this is the third anticipatory bail petition and earlier petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 30.04.2026. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the 2/5

accused were found in illegal possession of found 5.5 tons of redwood logs and the offence is grave in nature and the investigation is still pending and this is the second anticipatory bail petition and there are no change of circumstance. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Considering the rival submissions , nature of offence and considering the fact that the investigation is not yet completed and also the fact that the petitioner is also having some previous cases and also the fact that investigation is not yet completed and even after dismissal of the petitioner there is no change in circumstances to consider the present petition for anticipatory bail, hence this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Hence the petition stands dismissed.

(P D B J) 23.06.2026 aav 3/5

To

1. The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Trichy Regional Unit, Cantonment, Trichy 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J aav

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11425 of 2026 Date : 23.06.2026 5/5