P Pandiyarajan v. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN P.Pandiyarajan ..Petitioner Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Arakandanallur Police Station, Villupuram District.

[Crime No.137/2026] ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner herein on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.137/2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner:

M/S. Dharani P For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 4(1)(C), 4(1)(A), 14(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024, in Crime No.137 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 18.04.2026, while the de facto complainant (an Inspector of Police) was conducting vehicle checks near

the Arcot bus stop, the petitioner and the other accused were found in possession of 122 bottles of brandy (100 bottles of Vorion and 22 bottles of Old Chef), each containing 180 ml, without a valid licence or permit. 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 four (4) previous cases 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.Side), it is seen that the petitioner has got four previous cases of similar nature, 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 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. 08-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VEDA To 1.Inspector of Police, Arakandanallur Police Station, Villupuram District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

VEDA 08-06-2026