Rajasekar @ Andiyarpalayam Raja v. State Rep By

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J., The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 4(1) (aaa), 4(1)(h), 4(1)(i), 4(1)(k), 4(1-A) (ii) of TNP Act in Crime No.526 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on receiving a secret information on 27.07.2024, the respondent Police conducted a search, wherein they found that the petitioner and other accused were found to be in illegal possession of 1300 pockets of illicit arract without any valid licence. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and only based on the confession statement of the co-accused, the petitioner's name has been 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 prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The respondent has filed a detailed Counter.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submits that there are totally 6 accused in this case and that the petitioner is ranked as A1. He further submits that the petitioner was found to be in possession of 1300 pockets of ID arrack which contains 234 litres along with fine pack sealing machine and he is from Pondicherry and he is the licence holder to sell the arrack in his shop but on the contrary to the licence, he is manufacturing the arrack. He further submitted that the accused is having 29 previous cases registered against him and all the cases are similar in nature. He also stated that investigation in this case is almost completed and that if the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail, he would tamper the witnesses. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and also the fact that the petitioner is having 29 previous cases registered against him and on considering the gravity of the offence and on seeing the notorious act of the petitioner and also the total quantity of contraband involved in this case is very huge, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

31.07.2024 ssi

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J., ssi 31.07.2024