← Library
Madras High Court/17714/2025dismissed

G.Viji Alias Vijayakumar v. State Rep. By

2025-06-27Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.06.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.17714 of 2025 G.Viji @ Vijayakumar ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Aurovile Police Station, Villupuram District.

(Crime No.166 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.166 of 2025 on the file of respondent Police. For Petitioner :

Mr.D.Illayaraja For Respondent :

Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1)(h), 4(1)(b), 4(1)(i), 4(1-A) 14A of TN Prohibition Act and Section 4(1)(A) of TNP Amendment Act and Sections 318, 336, 340 & 341 of BNS in Crime No.166 of 2025, on the file of the respondent, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused were indulged in illegal transportation of 10032 bottles of illicit liquor. Hence the case. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

ham

3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and taking note of the nature of the allegations, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in this case, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 27.06.2025 ham To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Vanur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Aurovile Police Station, Villupuram District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Crl.O.P.No.17714 of 2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis