Murugan v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Murugan ..Petitioner Vs State By, The Inspector of Police, Chengam PEW Police Station, Tiruvannamalai, TamilNadu - 606 709.

[Crime No.8 of 2026] ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner in anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.8 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner:

Mr. P.Balamurugan For Respondent(s):

Ms.R.S.Indira Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 4(1)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024 and under Section 4(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, in Crime No.8 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 50 bottles of 'Government Express Brandy' each containing 180 ml, 19 bottles of ''Mclene brandy' each containing 180ml, 1 bottle of 'Mclene brandy' containing 90 ml. 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 (1) previous case pending against him. She further submits that if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he may abscond and commit similar offences in future as well.

Hence, she 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.

Courts, he has misused the liberty granted to him. In view of the same, if the petitioner is enlarged on 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 bail.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 09-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VEDA To 1.The Inspector of Police, Chengam PEW Police Station, Tiruvannamalai, TamilNadu - 606 709.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

VEDA 09-06-2026