Appu @ Ezhilarasan v. The Inspector Of Police,

CRL OP NO.1928 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28-01-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL OP NO.1928 of 2025 Appu @ Ezhilarasan, S/o. Kanniyappan, No.118, Periya Puthiya Colony, Vandavasi, Tiruvannamalai - 600 018.

Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, PEW Cheyyar Police Station, Thiruvannamalai. (Crime No.374 of 2024) Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): Mr. Mukesh Kannah For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Santhosh, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side).

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024, in Crime No.374 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of 26 brandy bottles for sale. Hence, this case.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner has no connection to the alleged offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner was arrayed as A2 only based on the confession statement given by the accused/A1. The petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner stating that the petitioner found in possession of 26 brandy bottles. Furthermore, he submits that the petitioner has three previous cases pending against him, one case from the year 2023, and two cases from the year 2024, including the present case. Granting anticipatory bail may enable the petitioner to commit similar offences in the future.

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

6. This is the second application for anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as bad antecedents of the petitioner, and also having three previous cases pending against him, this Court finds no change in circumstances that would warrant granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 28-01-2025 klt To 1.The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, PEW Cheyyar Police Station, Thiruvannamalai. (Crime No.374 of 2024).

A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

klt CRL OP NO.1928 of 2025 28-01-2025