Srirangan v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Srirangan S/o Perumal, D.No.43/1, Ram Nagar, Kumarasampatti, Hasthampatty, Salem District.
..Petitioner/A2 Vs State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Hasthampatty Police Station, Salem.
Crime No.51/2026.
...Respondent/
Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS Act, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.51/2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Hasthampatty Police Station, Salem District.
For Petitioner:
Mr. C.Samivel For Respondent:
Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 4(1)(aa), 4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act (TNP) in Crime No.51 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The allegation against the petitioner/A2 is that he, along with the other accused, attempted to sell 256 bottles of liquor, which are worth about Rs.37,414/-, without any permission and license. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution, and he has been falsely implicated in this case based on the confession of the co-accused/A1. He also submitted that the co-accused/A1 was granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem, in Crl.M.P.No.672 of 2026 dated 17.03.2026. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and the petitioner is ready to cooperate for the investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution's case and, upon instructions, submitted that twenty-three previous cases have been registered against the petitioner. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that 256 bottles were recovered from the petitioner/A2, which are worth about Rs.36,414/-. The contention of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) is that the petitioner has got twenty-three previous cases and has got significance, as the petitioner evidently has misused the liberty granted by this Court and subverted the justice.
7. The very conduct of the petitioner that repeatedly involving in the offence would only indicate that he is taking the bail granted by this Court very lightly and has been committing the offence one after another. Therefore, to curtail him from committing the further offences, and by his conduct he also becomes not deserving to have such relief, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 07-04-2026 dk
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem.
2. The Inspector of Police Hasthampatty Police Station, Salem.
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
dk 07-04-2026