AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
Facts
The petitioners, a husband and wife, were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24 May 2026 in Crime No. 262 of 2026 for allegedly possessing 16.620 kilograms of banned tobacco products. They filed a petition seeking bail, arguing innocence and stating that further custody was unnecessary for investigation. The prosecution opposed the bail but conceded that the petitioners had no criminal antecedents. The petitioners voluntarily offered to deposit Rs. 50,000 for the benefit of a Government Hospital without prejudice to their defence.
Law Points
The primary legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to be released on bail for alleged offences under Section 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 24(1) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003.
Acts & Articles
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 123, 269); Cigarettes And Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition Of Advertisement And Regulation Of Trade And Commerce, Production, Supply And Distribution) Act, 2003 (Section 24(1)); The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019.
Judgments Referred
P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283] was followed to state that the Magistrate or Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners if bail conditions are breached.
Obiter Dicta
Not discussed in this judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that bail is appropriate considering the period of incarceration already undergone, the absence of any criminal antecedents, the marital relationship of the petitioners, and their voluntary undertaking to make a non-refundable deposit to a public hospital.
Final Ruling
The court granted bail to the petitioners. They were ordered to execute a bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties, make a non-refundable deposit of Rs. 50,000 to the Dean, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai, and comply with specific reporting conditions to the respondent police.
Plain-Language Gist
The petitioners, a married couple, were arrested for possessing banned tobacco products. The High Court granted them bail because they had no prior criminal record and had already spent time in jail, on the condition that they make a non-refundable deposit of Rs. 50,000 to a government hospital.
AI-generated summary — verify against the full judgment text before relying on it in practice.
Judgment
C.Kumarappan, J
The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.05.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 123 of BNS 2023 read with Section 24(1) of COTPA Act in Crime No.262 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.
The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners were found in illegal possession of 16.620 kilograms of banned tobacco products. Hence, the case.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioners have been in custody since 24.05.2026 and that, in any event, his further custody is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.
The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of bail, reiterated the prosecution case and, on instructions, fairly submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents.
Considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioners, the fact that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, and further taking into account that the petitioners are husband and wife, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, without prejudice to their defence, are willing to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- to be utilized for the benefit of any Government Hospital, as may be directed by this Court.
Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Kallakurichi, and subject to the following conditions:
[a] The petitioners are directed to make a non-refundable deposit of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand Only] in favour of the Dean, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai, without prejudice to the right of the defence before the Trial Court, and the receipt shall be produced at the time of executing the bond;
[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 identity;
[c] the 1st petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of 15 days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation. The 2nd petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;
[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[e] the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
[f] on breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions had been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court itself, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];
[g] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.