Dismissed¶27

Paulraj v. State Represented by The Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Jul 2026CRL OP/19606/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court anticipatory bail refused and petition dismissed; CRL OP No.19606 of 2026 dated 23.07.2026 by C. Kumarappan J.; petition under section 482 of BNSS; Crime No.103 of 2026, Aliyar Police Station, Coimbatore District; alleged offences under Section 24(1) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and Section 123 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; illegal possession of 215.275 Kgs banned tobacco products; petitioner Paulraj; two previous cases of similar nature; threat to younger generation; advocates S. Lal Devasagayam and N. Palanivel (Government Advocate (Crl. Side)).

What did the court decide?

On consideration of the Government Advocate's submissions, the Court found that the petitioner has two previous cases of a similar nature and that the banned tobacco products involved are in huge quantity. ¶22

Paulraj Vs State Represented by The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 19606 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 19606 of 2026

Paulraj

..Petitioner(s)

State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Aliyar Police Station, Coimbatore District. Crime No.103 of 2026

¶10

..Respondent(s)

¶11

This petition under section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in the event of arrest pending investigation in Crime No.103 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Lal Devasagayam For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 24(1) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 and Section 123 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.103 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

Page1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

CRL OP No. 19606 of 2026

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found to be in

¶19

illegal possession of 215.275 Kgs of banned tobacco products. Hence, the case.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner has no bad antecedents. On the basis of the confession of A1, this petitioner has been arrayed as an accused. No contraband was recovered from this petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and would submit that the petitioner has two previous cases of similar nature.

¶22

From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, it is seen that the petitioner has two previous cases of a similar nature and that the banned tobacco products involved are in huge quantity. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he would indulge in the commission of similar offences, which would become a threat to the younger generation. Hence, considering

¶23

Page2 of 4

¶24

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

¶25

CRL OP No. 19606 of 2026

¶26

such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶27