SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74724

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice P. DHANABAL
PECHIYAMMAL – Appellant
Versus
State Rep By – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CRL OP No. 35800 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

CRL OP No. 35800 of 2025

Pechiyammal

Petitioner(s)

Vs

State Rep By

The Inspector of Police, Thakkolam

Police Station, Kanchipuram District.

Crime No.347 of 2025

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

To enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.347 of 2025 pending on the file of the

respondent police and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A. Saranraj

For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government

Advocate (crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

11.12.2025 for the offences punishable under Section 24(1) of COTPA Act,

2003 and Section 123 of BNS Act, 2023 in Crime No.347 of 2025 on the file of

the respondent police, seeks bail.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 03:42:09 pm )

##PAGE2##

CRL OP No. 35800 of 2025

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in illegal

possession of 420 packs of Hans Tobacco, each 20 grams, 100 packs of Cool

Lip packs, each 12.6 grams, 55 packs of Swagat Gold Tobacco, each 20 grams

and 300 packs of Vimal Panmasala, each 2.5 grams, totalling to 11.510 Kgs of

banned tobacco products. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the

respondent police have registered a false case against the petitioner and she was

arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.12.2025. According to the

prosecution, the petitioner had illegally possessed 11.510 Kgs of banned

tobacco products. In fact, the petitioner is innocent and she has not committed

any offence as alleged by the prosecution. This case has been foisted against the

petitioner for statistical purpose. Therefore prayed to grant of bail to the

petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that

this case was registered as against the petitioner for the illegal possession of

banned tobacco products, investigation in this case is pending and that the

petitioner has no previous case of similar nature. However, he strongly opposed

to grant bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Considering the nature of offences and also taking note of the fact that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 03:42:09 pm )

##PAGE3##

CRL OP No. 35800 of 2025

the petitioner is in judicial custody from 11.12.2025, moreover, the petitioner

has no previous case and also considering the period of incarceration of the

petitioner from 11.12.2025, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner,

subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released

on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-

(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like

sum to the satisfaction of the Learned Judicial Magistrate-

No.II, Arakkonam, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent

police every Saturday for a period of four weeks;

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to

the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, or of the

commission of which she is suspected;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during

investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with

the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such

facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the

evidence;

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/12/2025 03:42:09 pm )

##PAGE4##

CRL OP No. 35800 of 2025

learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take

appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law

as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner

released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself

as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs.

State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

[g] If the a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top