Kumar v. State Rep By Its, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Kumar Petitioner(s) Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Inspector of Police Salem Town Police Station, Salem City.

(Crime No.313 of 2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner accused on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent in Crime No.313 of 2025.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.C.Deepakkumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.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) and 4(1)(i) of Tamil

Nadu Prohibition Act in Crime No.313 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.06.2025, the respondent police conducted raid and intercepted a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 54 S 6698, driven by the A1 and found in possession of 180 ML of Black Brandy 22 bottles, Diamond XXX Rum 76 bottles. The petitioner was implicated based on further investigation. 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 not present at the place of occurrence and only based on the confession of A1 only, he was implicated and only for the statistical purpose only the present false case was registered against the petitioner. 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 and on instructions submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender, having five previous case in similar nature and 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 petitioner is a habitual offender having five previous case in similar nature, 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 State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Inspector of Police Salem Town Police Station, Salem City.

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.

jai CRL OP No. 18011of 30-06-2025