Yuvraj Singh @ Yuvraj Singh Thakur v. The State Rep by The Inspector of Police
CRL OP/21901/2026 · 2026-08-07
C Kumarappan
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 59544 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 59544 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CRL OP No. 21901 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 21901 of 2026 Yuvraj Singh @ Yuvraj Singh Thakur ..Petitioner Vs The State, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sathuvachari P.S, Vellore District, State of Tamil Nadu. ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.139 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner: Mr.B.Kumar, Senior Counsel for M/s.Waraon and Sai Rams For Respondent: Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar Counsel for Government of Tamilnadu (Criminal Side)
ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.07.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 111 and 123 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.139 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 21901 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 5
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner allegedly arranged for the delivery of a parcel containing 400 tablets of Tapentadol Hydrochloride (100 mg each) through the co-accused by using a fictitious address. The Branch Manager, suspecting the contents of the parcel, opened it and found four boxes containing the said 400 tablets of Tapentadol Hydrochloride 100 mg. Hence the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that no recovery was effected from the petitioner, as the alleged contraband was recovered entirely from a courier office. He further contended that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 24.07.2026 and is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent, while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has no bad antecedents.
5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 21901 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 5
6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides, as well as the nature of the recovery, the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner since 24.07.2026 and the absence of any criminal antecedents, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions. 7. 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 (out of which one surety must be a blood related surety) for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned V Magistrate, Vellore and subject to the following conditions: [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. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [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 take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 21901 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 5 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]; [f] if the petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR may be registered under Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023. 07-08-2026 NSL Note:
1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court. 2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. To
1. The V Magistrate Vellore. 2. Central Jail, Vellore. 3.
The Inspector of Police, Sathuvachari P.S, Vellore District. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 21901 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 5 C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NSL CRL OP No. 21901 of 2026 07-08-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis