R. Dharmaraj, v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Patteeswaram
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL 1.R.Dharamaraj 2.N.Ramesh Krishnan
...Petitioners/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Patteswaram Police Station Thanjavur District.
(Crime No. 98 of 2026 )
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Rajendran Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.K.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 98 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
1/6
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 41(A) of TNP Act r/w 49 of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 98 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.03.2026, the petitioners were in illegal possession of 27 bottles of brandi each containing 180 ml. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated in this case and they are no way connected in the above said incident. They have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits 2/6
that on 10.03.2026, the petitioners were in illegal possession of 27 bottles of brandi each containing 180 ml. He further submits that the petitioners have been arrayed as A2 and A3, respectively and A2 has no previous case and A3 has one previous case which is not similar in nature. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioners, and the quantity involved in this case and also considering the facts that A2 has no previous case and though A3 has one previous case, which is not similar in nature, in that case already bail was granted, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the 3/6
learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Kumbakonam, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.
[c] the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. 4/6
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
(P D B J) 24.03.2026 apd To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Kumbakonam.
2.The Inspector of Police, Patteswaram Police Station Thanjavur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P. DHANABAL, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 5738 of 2026 Date : 24.03.2026 6/6