Selvaganesh v. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-02-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL OP NO. 3790 of 2025 Selvaganesh Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. By Inspector of Police R-6 Kumaran Nagar police Station Chennai In Cr.No. 22 of 2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No.22 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Girija Iyappan N.SenthilKumar A.Afrin For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Balaji, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/6

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(C) and 24 of TN Prohibition Act in Crime No.22 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that, while the respondent police were on their routine patrol duty, they found that the accused persons were illegally selling liquor in the TASMAC bar bearing Shop No.645 at Jones Road, Saidapet on the republic day, which was declared as holiday by the Government; that upon investigation it is revealed that the petitioner, who is the owner of the said TASMAC bar also involved in the aforesaid offence. Hence, this case.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case; that the petitioner had never committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and without his knowledge, his employees have sold liquors on the said day; that the co-accused were arrested and released on bail vide order dated 27.01.2025 by the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, 2/6

Saidapet, Chennai; and that the petitioner is ready to produce solvent sureties and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and also undertake to appear and to co-operate for the investigation, and prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.

Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions submitted that the petitioner herein is the owner of the said TASMAC bar; that the petitioner has no previous cases; and that the investigation is pending, hence opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.

6.

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, the fact that the petitioner herein has no previous cases, the co-accused were arrested and released on bail and since, custodial interrogation is not required, this Court is inclined 3/6

to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 7.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10:30 a.m., until further orders.

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or 4/6

witness either during investigation or trial. [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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]. [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 17.02.2025 stn To

1. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, R-6, Kumaran Nagar Police Station, Chennai.

Cr.No. 22 of2025 SUNDER MOHAN, J.

stn 5/6

Crl.O.P. No.3790 of 2025 17.02.2025 6/6