Logu Alias Loganathan v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.30632 of 2025

1. Logu @ Loganathan

2. Kannan @ Mayakannan

3. Ashok @ Ashok Kumar

4. Sabari @ Sabarinathan

5. Sundhar @ Suntharam ... Petitioners Vs.

State rep by Inspector of Police, Ulundurpet Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

... Respondent (Crime No.845 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest, pending investigation in Crime No.545 of 2025 on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Saravanabhavan For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath 1/4

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioners/A6 to A10, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Section 4(1)(A), 4(1-A)(ii), 14A of TNP Act in Cr.No.545 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that when the respondent police were on regular patrol duty, they intercepted a Tata Indica car bearing Registration No. TN-01-A-6369. The accused were found in possession of 267 bottles of Pondicherry liquor, which were seized by the respondent police. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and therefore prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail. 2/4

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that totally, there are ten accused are involved in this case, and the petitioners herein are ranked as A6 to A10. He further submitted that A1 to A5 were arrested, that A6 and A7 were absconding, and that A1 and A2 have been enlarged on bail. However, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Taking all the factors into consideration, and in view of the quantity of Pondicherry liquor seized, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 3/4

10.11.2025 Vv To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Ulundurpet.

2. The Inspector of Police, Ulundurpet Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv 4/4

Crl.O.P.No.30632 of 2025 10.11.2025 5/4