Ponmani v. The Sate, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Ponmani ..Petitioner Vs The State The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Sirkali, Mayiladuthuai District.

(Crime No. 76 of 2026) ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in respect of Crime No. 76 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforce Wing, Sirkali, Mayiladuthurai District pending investigation.

For Petitioner:

Mr.Silambarasan Ramalingam For Respondent:

Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 4(1)(A), 4(1-A)(ii) of Tamilnadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024 in Crime No.76 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found with 110 litres of Pondicherry arrack and 480 bottles of brandy (each 180 ml). It is further alleged that the contraband liquor was illegally transported from Pondicherry and sold without permission. Hence, the case was registered.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged and has been falsely implicated based on the alleged confession of co-accused. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is a permanent resident and will not abscond or tamper with witnesses. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the offence involves illegal transportation and sale of huge quantity of contraband liquor. It is further submitted that though the petitioner has no previous case, the nature of the offence is serious and affects society at large. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. Considering the submission of the learned counsel on either side, it is seen that though the petitioner has no previous case, the allegation involves illegal transportation of liquor, which has a direct impact on society. Considering the nature of the allegation and its societal impact, this Court is of the view that it would be unsafe to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail at this stage. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 23-03-2026 NSL To 1.The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Sirkali, Mayiladuthuai District.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 23-03-2026