Sankar v. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

ORDER The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for offences punishable under Section 4(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, as amended by the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Page2 of 4 (Amendment) Act, 2024, in Crime No. 64 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, on vehicle check by the respondent police, the petitioner along with other accused, was found in illegal possession of 192 liquor bottles. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in no way connected to this case and has been falsely implicated. He further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, while reiterating the prosecution case, strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. He submitted that the petitioner has four previous cases of a similar nature, which clearly indicates that the petitioner is a habitual offender. He further submitted that if the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail, there is a high likelihood that he will abscond or continue to commit similar offences in the future, thereby hindering the investigation.

¶5Considering the fact that the case involves a prohibition offence, which has serious ramifications and a detrimental impact on society, and taking into Page3 of 4 account that seizure of a substantial quantity of 192 liquor bottles suggests involvement in organised illegal trade rather than mere possession for personal consumption, and that the petitioner has four previous case pending against him, and the need to unearth the network behind such illegal transportation, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation is necessary for an effective investigation. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail at this stage.

¶6Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 09-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni To

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thally Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. CRLoOPoNo.o8922oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. Jeni CRLoOPoNo.o8922oofo2026 09-04-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Sankar ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thally Police Station, Krishnagiri District. (Crime No.64 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent police in connection with the Crime No. 64 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.L.Dhilipan Pandian For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Criminal Side)