Karunanidhi v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 21.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Karunanidhi

...Petitioner

Vs The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Velur Police Station, Namakkal District (Crime No.341 of 2024)

...Respondent

For Petitioner :

Ms.Parvinbanu.L For Respondent :

Mr.V.J.Priyadarsana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

When the matter was taken up on 28.01.2025, it was represented that the petitioner was arrested, thereby, this Court had dismissed the petition as infructuous, however, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was not arrested and thereby, this matter has been listed today under the caption "for clarification".

2. In the circumstances, recalling the dismissal order passed by this Court on 28.01.2025, the following order is being passed. 1/4

3. Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.341 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of B.N.S. and Sections 5 and 7 (3) of Lotteries Regulation Act, 1998, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail.

4. Pleading innocence on the part of the petitioner, false implication in the case, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court. He further submits that since the petitioner has several previous cases, the respondent Police has foisted the present case against him. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court.

5. The case of the prosecution as put forth by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police, opposing for grant of anticipatory bail, is that the accused were found to be in illegal possession of banned lottery tickets and the specific allegation against the petitioner/A2 is that he is the one who had purchased the lottery tickets from other states and given it to the first accused. He further submits that eighteen previous cases of similar nature are pending against the petitioner.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record including the counter filed by the respondent Police and taking 2/4

note of the facts that the petitioner is a habitual offender, having 18 previous cases, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 21.02.2025 ham To 1.The Inspector of Police, Velur Police Station, Namakkal District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

3/4

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J, ham 21.02.2025 4/4