Ranjith v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Rameswaram Town
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Ranjith
...Petitioner/A2
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Rameswaram Town Police Station Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.0078 of 2026)
...Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioner :Mr.C.Susikumar Advocate.
For Respondent :Mr.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 0078 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences 1/7
punishable under Section 4(1)(A) of Tamilnadu Prohibition Act, in Crime No.78 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.03.2026, during vehicle check up, the defacto complainant/Sub Inspector of Police, found that the petitioner and other accused were in illegal possession of 100 brandy bottles of liquor for illegal sale without getting any permit or licence. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that based on the confession of A1, he was arrayed as accused and A1 was arrested and released on bail. Hence, 2/7
he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the petitioner has six previous cases. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the quantity of the material involved in this case and though the petitioner has six previous cases, the same are not similar kind of offences and in all cases, he was released on bail and the material part of the 3/7
investigation might have been completed and based on the confession of A1, he has been arrayed as accused and A1 was arrested and released on bail, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is 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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram, and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of 30 days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.
4/7
[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.
[d] the petitioner 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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 5/7
SCW 5560].
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
(P D B J) 22.04.2026 vsg To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram. 2.The Inspector of Police, Rameswaram Town Police Station Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J., vsg
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 7870 of 2026 Date : 22.04.2026 7/7