CRL OP No. 19069 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 19069 of 2026 Fayan ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep by The Inspector of Police Chengam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. Crime no.138 of 2026. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime no.138 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police station. For Petitioner(s): M/S. E.Sathiyaraj Elangovan For Respondent(s): MR.N.PALANIVEL, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE) ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 275, 123 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Corresponding Sections 273, 328 of IPC) and Section 24(1) of the Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Acts, in Crime No.138 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19069 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 20.06.2026, at about 16:30 hours, the respondent police conducted a surprise check near Bengaluru Road in Chengam Town. During the check, they observed two individuals purchasing items in a suspicious manner from the petty shop owned by the accused. Upon noticing the arrival of the police officials, the accused managed to flee from the spot. Subsequently, the respondent police searched the premises and seized banned tobacco products, specifically 150 packets of "Hans" (each weighing 20 grams) and 100 packets of "Vimal" (each weighing 139 grams) from the shop. Hence, the case was registered against the accused. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner has two previous cases of similar in nature. He further submitted that if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he may abscond and commit similar offences in the future. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19069 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 5. Taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner and the fact that the case involves a prohibition offence, which has serious effect on society, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 22-07-2026 GBI To 1. The Inspector of Police Chengam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 19069 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 C.KUMARAPPAN, J. GBI CRL OP No. 19069 of 2026 22-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis