Sureshkumar Mani v. State Represented 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 CRL OP No. 8563 of 2026 Sureshkumar Mani, S/o.Mani Chinnusamy, Door No. 10/2-46C, S.K.K.Valavu, Mecheri Post, Mettur, Mecheri, Salem, Tamil Nadu - 636 453.

...Petitioner/A2

Vs State represented by:

The Inspector of Police, Mecheri Police Station, FIR No.109/2026

...Respondent/

Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to grant an anticipatory Bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before any Court in connection with the case in Crime No.109 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the Respondent herein. For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 4(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, in Crime No.109 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 103 bottles of liquor 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 arrested and remanded to judicial custody, and subsequently, he has been granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Mettur. 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 would submit that 103 bottles were recovered from A1, and according to the confession, they came to know that the petitioner/A2 is the owner of the bar. 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 counsel for the petitioner/A2 would submit that only upon the confession statement of the co-accused/A1, this petitioner was implicated. However, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that 103 bottles were recovered from A1, and according to the confession, they came to know that the present petitioner/A2 is the owner of the bar.

7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 would submit that A1 has already been released on bail, this is the case comes under the Prohibition case, and the conduct of the petitioner will have a serious impact upon society; considering the nature of the allegation against this petitioner, this Court is of

the view that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. Hence, 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. Judicial Magistrate No.2, Mettur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Mecheri Police Station.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

dk CRL OP No. 8563 of 2026 07-04-2026