Sumathi M v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

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 (Amendment) Act, 2024, in Crime No.104 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. Page1 of 4

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on the day of the alleged occurrence, acting on specific intelligence regarding the illegal possession of liquor, the respondent police conducted an inspection. During the course of the operation, the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of 120 bottles of liquor. 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 35 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 very likelihood that she 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 account that seizure of a substantial quantity of 120 liquor bottles suggests Page2 of 4 involvement in organised illegal trade rather than mere possession for personal consumption, and that the petitioner has 35 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 I Court, Thiruvallur.

2.The Inspector of police, C-5, Vengal Police Station, Thiruvallur

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. Page3 of 4 CRLoOPoNo.o8975oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. Jeni CRLoOPoNo.o8975oofo2026 09-04-2026 Page4oofo4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN M.Sumathi ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep By, The Inspector of police C-5, Vengal Police Station, Thiruvallur (Crime No.104/2026) ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge her on Anticipatory Bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.104 of 2026, under Sections 4(1)(A) BNS and Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Lakshmikanthan J For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Criminal Side)