Arumugam v. The State Rep By The

Crl.OP.No.22679 of 2022 Crl.O.P.No.22679 of 2022 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 4(1)(a), 4(1-A) of TNP Act, in Crime No.337 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners were in possession of 40 liters of I.D. Arrack. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they are no way connected with the alleged offence. Hence he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the investigation is not yet completed and if the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail, there is a possibility that they will tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation. He would further submit that in respect of the A2/1st petitioner herein, there are 5 previous cases pending against him and hence he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP.No.22679 of 2022 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

mpl

5. Taking into consideration the allegations and also the bad antecedent of the petitioners and the fact that the case is in the initial stage of the investigation and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are essential, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 20.09.2022 mpl Crl.O.P.No.22679 of 2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis