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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR MINNALRAJ Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, PEW Tiruvannamalai Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District, Crime No.58 of 2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER This Criminal Original Petition is filed to enlarge the Petitioner on Bail in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.58 of 2025, pending investigation on the file of Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s):

M/s. B.S.MANIKANDAN For Respondent(s):

M/s.V. Meganathan GA (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(a), 4(1)(i) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and Sections 4(1)(C), 4(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amedment) Act, 2024 in Crime No.58 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that based on the complaint, the respondent found the petitioner selling liquor in the black market. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was implicated in this case only for the statistical purpose and he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution's case. Learned Government Advocate further stated the investigation in this case is at crucial stage, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is chance of absconding and possibility committing similar offence. Hence, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the gravity of offence, the stage of investigation and the objection raised by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition stands dismissed. 30-06-2025 jai To 1.The Inspector of Police, PEW Tiruvannamalai Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Thandarampattu.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.

jai CRL OP No. 18049 of 30-06-2025