Dharmadurai Alias Darmadurai v. The State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.03.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Dharmadurai @ Darmadurai ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, PEW-Attur, Salem District.

Crime.No. 39/2026 ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.39 of 2026 on the file of PEW-Attur, Salem. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.T.Ganesan For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 4(1)(C), 4(1-A)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, in Crime No.39 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that while the respondent police was in patrol, she found a person standing in the petitioner's land with 3 litres of ID Arrack. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no way connected to this case and has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submits that the petitioner has one previous case against him. He further submits that if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he may abscond and commit similar offences in future as well. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available. 6.From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is seen that the petitioner has got one previous case, which clearly demonstrates that whenever he was granted bail by the Courts, he has misused the liberty granted to him. In view of the same, if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he may be emboldened to indulge in similar offences in future without fear of law. Hence, taking into consideration of interest of the society at large, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 24.03.2026 rap To

1. The Inspector of Police, PEW-Attur, Salem District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court,Madras.

3. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Attur

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

rap 24.03.2026