Dismissed

Ravikiran v. State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC15 Sept 2023CRL OP/8114/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order rejects the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in a criminal case involving alleged offences under the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act and IPC. The court refused bail due to the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle containing seized banned tobacco products and the significant value of the contraband found.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's application for anticipatory bail was dismissed and the petition is rejected.

Ravikiran Vs State Rep by the Inspector of Police — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.8114 of 2023

¶2

Orders Reserved on Orders Pronounced on 13.09.2023 15.09.2023

¶3

Crl.O.P.No.8114 of 2023

¶4

RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.

¶5

The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Section 24 (1) of Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and Section 328 IPC and 59 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 registered in Cr.No.172 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶6

The case of prosecution is that on 04.12.2021, when the SubInspector of Police attached to the respondent police has received an information from the Sub-Inspector of Police, who was the night patrolling officer at Coonoor Level Cross and checking the vehicle, at around 11.30 p.m. Ashok Leyland Grill cage lorry bearing Regn.No.KA09 D 9987 coming from Ooty towards Coonoor was stopped and checked. There were three persons in the said lorry and when inquired, they were Raju s/o Jegadish, Suresh s/o Ramakrishnan and Gururaj s/o Umesh. The said truck was full of coconut shells. When they checked the said vehicle, they found 49 sack and

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶8

Crl.O.P.No.8114 of 2023

¶9

26 white urea bags stacked inside the said coconut shell. When it was suspiciously opened and sniffed, it was found that it contained tobacco products which are banned by the Tamil Nadu Government and are harmful to human life and they had seized the banned pan products from the above persons and this petitioner has been arrayed as co-accused based on the confession of the above accused persons.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is in no way connected with the alleged crime.

¶11

The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would contend that

¶12

on a routine check on the road, the respondent police have unearthed 49 sack and 26 white urea bags of HANS and COOL Lip worth about Rs.8 lakhs and strongly opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that A.1 to A.3 were arrested and subsequently granted bail.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

¶14

Government Advocate (Crl.side) and perused the records.

¶15

2/4

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.8114 of 2023

¶18

Considering the quantum and also the value of the contraband

¶19

and that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, I am not inclined to grant

¶20

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶22

15.09.2023

¶23

rgr

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

¶25

3/4

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.8114 of 2023

¶27

RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.

¶28

rgr

¶29

Order in Crl.O.P.No.8114 of 2023

¶30

15.09.2023

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

Ravikiran v. State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravikiran v. State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamilselvi Vs Inspector of Police

Venkataraman Vs Tamilselvi

Jeenath Begam Vs the Inspector of Police

Alexis Samson Vs Inspector of Police

R.Periyasamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Sasikumar Shanmugam Vs State Represented by Inspector of Police