Raji Alias Sathiyamoorthy v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20-12-2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL OP NO. 31790 of 2024 Raji alias Sathiyamoorthy S/o Arumugam, Maragathapuram, Villupuram - 605602.

Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By The Inspector of Police, Villupuram Taluk Police Station, Villupuram District (Crime No. 787 of 2024).

Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):

Saravanabhavan G A Santhanakrishnan For Respondent(s):

Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(a), 4(1)(h), 4(1)(A) and 4(1)(C) of TNP Act in Crime No.787 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

1/4

2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 29.09.2024, while the respondent police were on their routine check up duty, they found that A1 was in possession of 20 nos. of brandy pouch each of 180 ml and 35 nos. of brandy belongs to Pondicherry. Upon enquiry, A1 confessed that the petitioner herein had purchased the liquors from Pondicherry and instigated her to illegally sell the same. Hence, this case.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case, based on the confession of arrested accused. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to produce solvent sureties and to abide with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.

Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, stating that the petitioner along with co-accused have involved in illegal selling of 55 nos. of liquor bottles purchased from Puducherry without valid permission or license. He further submitted that there are 9 previous cases against the petitioner.

2/4

5.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record including the FIR. 6.

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has nine previous cases, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. 20.12.2024 stn A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

3/4

stn To

1. The State Rep By The Inspector of Police, Villupuram Taluk Police Station, Villupuram District (Crime No. 787 of 2024).

Crl.O.P. No.31790 of 2024 20.12.2024 4/4