Dismissed

Muthukumar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Narikudi

Madras HC6 Aug 2026CRL OP(MD)/16539/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court dismissed an appeal for bail in a case concerning the illegal transportation and intended sale of prohibited tobacco products, noting the harmful health effects on the public and the large quantity seized.

What did the court decide?

Petition for bail in Crime No.161 of 2026 is dismissed; petitioner remains in judicial custody.

Muthukumar Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police… — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16539 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 06.08.2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No. 16539 of 2026

Muthukumar

...Petitioner

State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Narikudi Police Station, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.161 of 2026)

¶12

...Respondent/Complainant

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sathiya Nathan

¶14

Advocate

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side)

¶16

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS

¶17

PRAYER :-

¶18

For Bail in Cr.No. 161 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

¶19

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶20

The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial

¶21

custody on 24.07.2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 123 of BNS and 24(1) of COTP Act, in Crime No.161 of 2026 on the file of the respondent

¶22

1/5

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16539 of 2026

¶25

police, seeks bail.

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was involved in the illegal transportation of tobacco products weighing about 447.75 kgs in a goods vehicle, namely, a Tata Super ACE bearing Registration No.Tn – 31 BQ – 1291. Based on prior information, the vehicle was intercepted and searched, and the contraband tobacco products were recovered. Hence, the case was registered.

¶27

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioner are bailable in nature and that the offence is also not made out against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.

¶28

4.The learned counsel for the State (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the tobacco products are banned products and that consumption of the same is harmful to human health. He further submitted that the Government of Tamil Nadu has prohibited the sale, transportation and use of such tobacco products. After securing the petitioner, it was revealed that the tobacco products had been brought for sale to individuals and that their consumption would cause serious health hazards, particularly to persons

¶29

2/5

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16539 of 2026

¶32

belonging to the working class and economically weaker sections of society.

¶33

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶34

6.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the FIR and the connected materials. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the State the tobacco products were not transported for any legitimate industrial purpose, but were allegedly intended for sale and consumption by individuals. A considerable number of the consumers of such products are from economically weaker sections, and continued consumption would not only cause serious health hazards but may also result in substantial expenditure towards medical treatment. Considering the nature of the allegations, the huge quantity of tobacco products involved, namely, 447.75 kgs, and the overall circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶35

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

(K R S J) 06.08.2026

3/5

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

¶40

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16539 of 2026

¶41

¶42

1.The Inspector of Police, Narikudi Police Station, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.161 of 2026)

¶43

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶44

4/5

¶45

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

¶46

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16539 of 2026

¶47

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

¶48

¶49

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No. 16539 of 2026

¶50

Date : 06.08.2026

¶51

5/5

¶52

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

Muthukumar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Narikudi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthukumar v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Narikudi

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