Praveenkumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others

S.Srimathy, J

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 35(1)(e) and 106(1) of B.N.S.S. and Section 305(d) of the B.N.S., in Crime No.2 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

The case of the prosecution is that, on 06.02.2026, based on secret information received from an informant, the respondent police intercepted a suspiciously stationary vehicle near a large vacant field beside the National Highway connecting Thanjavur to Chennai. On search, it was revealed that the petitioner and other accused were involved in illegally smuggling antique sculptures. Hence, the complaint.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that based on credible secret information, the respondent police intercepted a suspiciously parked vehicle near a vacant field beside the National Highway connecting Thanjavur to Chennai, and on search, it was revealed that the petitioner along with other accused persons was involved in the illegal smuggling of antique sculptures. It is further submitted that the offence involves smuggling of valuable antiquities, which is of serious nature affecting national heritage, and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for effective investigation. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail and sought dismissal of the petition.

This Court, on considering the materials placed on record and the nature and gravity of the allegations, finds that the case pertains to the illegal smuggling of antique sculptures, which are protected and valuable heritage items. The petitioner is stated to have been apprehended in connection with the transportation of such idols, and prima facie materials indicate his involvement.

Considering the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of tampering with evidence, and the necessity for custodial interrogation, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is fully aware of the details relating to the antique idols and the gravity of the offence alleged against him. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.