Agoramoorthy v. The State Represented By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.08.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
1. Agoramoorthy
2. Sathya Sokkalingam ... Petitioners/ Accused 1 & 4 Vs.
The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, PEW Sirkali Police Station, Myladuthurai District.
(Crime No.721 of 2025).
... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.721 of 2025 on the file of respondent Police.
For Petitioners : Mr. S. John Josh For Respondent : Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ****** 1/4
O R D E R
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(A), 4(1-A) of TNP Amendment Act, 2024 in Crime No.721 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.08.2025 at about 04:00PM, a vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-82-X-0849 Bolero Maxi Truck Plus proceeding towards north direction at Maruthampallam Main Road was intercepted by the respondent police, wherein three persons in the said vehicle and on check conducted, resulted in recovery of 110 litres of Pondy Liquor (two polythene bags containing 55 litres each) and 386 bottles of brandy each 180 ml. The first petitioner herein has fled from the scene of occurrence soon after seeing the raiding party, the other two accused were arrested and based on their confession, the second petitioner being the owner of the vehicle also implicated in this case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the 2/4
petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners herein are husband and wife and the arrack from Pondicherry was illegally transported by A2 and A3 without the knowledge of the petitioners herein. He further contended that A1 is the employer of A2 and A3 and the vehicle of the petitioners were taken by A2 and A3 without their knowledge and consent. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent while opposing for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners, reiterated the prosecution case and states that A1 had engaged A2 and A3 for illegal transportation of arrack and liquor from Pondicherry for the purpose of selling the same in Tamil Nadu for premium. He further submitted that the second petitioner/ A4, who is the owner of the vehicle had abutted the crime by knowingly giving her vehicle for the said illegal act. Further more, the petitioners/ A1 and A4 are husband and wife and against A1 there is one previous case of similar nature.
3/4
Dr. G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.,
5. Heard the learned counsels and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the facts of this case and the objections of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 21.08.2025 stn To
1. The Inspector of Police, PEW Sirkali Police Station, Myladuthurai District.
(Crime No.721 of 2025).
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
4/4