Dineshkumar vs The State Rep by The Inspector of Police

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 12.08.2026 for the alleged offence under Section 123 of BNS, 2023 and 7(5), 20(2) of COTPA Act, in Crime No.245 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was alleged to have been found in illegal possession of 221 kgs of banned tobacco products. Hence the case.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the Petitioner.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner has been incarcerated since 12.08.2026. He further submitted that the petitioner has one previous cases, similar in nature pending against him. However, he opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner.

I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court is of the view that though the petitioner was found in possession of banned tobacco products, and taking into account that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 12.08.2026 and the fact that the entire contraband was seized from the petitioner, this Court is of the firm view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet, and on further conditions that:

[a] 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;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in acc 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];

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