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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.34195 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.545 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 arrest, pending investigation in Crime No.545 of 2025 on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Saravanabhavan For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/6

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 while the respondent police were on regular patrol duty, they intercepted a Tata Indica car bearing Registration No. TN-01-A-6369, in which the accused were found in possession of 267 bottles of Pondicherry liquor. The said liquor was seized by the respondent police, which led to the registration of the present FIR. Hence, the present 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 and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and therefore prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are totally ten accused in this case and that the petitioners herein are arrayed as A6 to A10. He further submitted that A1 to A5 were arrested, that A6 and A7 2/6

were absconding, and that A1 and A2 have already been enlarged on bail. He also submitted that this Court, vide order dated 10.11.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.30632 of 2025, dismissed the earlier anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioners. On these grounds, the learned Government Advocate vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

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

6. Earlier, this Court dismissed the petitioners' anticipatory bail petition vide order dated 10.11.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.30632 of 2025. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that subsequently, the co-accused in the very same case have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.31424 of 2025, vide order dated 18.11.2025.

7. Considering the fact that the co-accused have been enlarged on anticipatory bail and also taking note of the fact that the petitioners have no previous criminal antecedents, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

8. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made, before the learned Judicial 3/6

Magistrate-I, Ulundurpet on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute separate bonds for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that:at: (a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity; (c) The petitioners shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(d) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (e) The petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial:

(f) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 4/6

released on anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; (g)If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

15.12.2025 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.

5/6

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.34195 of 2025 15.12.2025 6/6