Mani Vs State rep. by

Mani vs State rep. by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Feb 26, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1424454

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1424454
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Feb 26, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/4806/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mani

Respondent

State rep. by

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at madrasdated: 26-02-2026coramthe hon'ble mr.justice k.rajasekar mani s/o.seenuvasan, uthodaikadu, akkarapalaiyam, vadakkanandal, villupuram district. ..petitioner(s) vs state rep. by inspector of police, crime no.16/2026 ..respondent(s) to enlarge the petitioner bail in the event of the arrest in connection with the crime no.16 of 2026 on the file of respondent police and thus render justice. for petitioner(s): m/s.balachandran t g.arunsekaran v.ruthra mohan k.sripal g.shalini page1 of 4 for respondent(s): ms.j.r. archana, government advocate ( crl side)orderthe petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under sections 4(1)(c), 4(1-a) (ii) of tn prohibition ( amendment) act in cr.no.16 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.2. earlier, this court vide order dated 22.01.2026 in crl.o.p.no.1205 of 2026 dismissed the petitioner’s anticipatory bail petition for the following reasons:5. taking into consideration the facts and circumstances ofthe case and the bad antecedents of the petitioner, who has 4 four previous cases of a similar nature, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.3. now, the present petition has been filed without any change incircumstances after the dismissal of the petitioner’s earlier bail petition. this clearly shows that the petitioner has abused the process of law. hence, i am not inclined to reconsider the earlier order. page2 of 44. accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. index: yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderneutral citation: yes/no smn to1. inspector of police,2. the public prosecutor, high court, madras page3 of 4k.rajasekar, j.smn page4 of 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Mani S/o.Seenuvasan, Uthodaikadu, Akkarapalaiyam, Vadakkanandal, Villupuram District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, Crime No.16/2026 ..Respondent(s) To enlarge the petitioner bail in the event of the arrest in connection with the Crime No.16 of 2026 on the file of respondent police and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): M/s.Balachandran T G.Arunsekaran V.Ruthra Mohan K.Sripal G.Shalini Page1 of 4 For Respondent(s): Ms.J.R. Archana, Government Advocate ( Crl side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 4(1)(c), 4(1-A) (ii) of TN Prohibition ( Amendment) Act in Cr.No.16 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. Earlier, this Court vide order dated 22.01.2026 in Crl.O.P.No.1205 of 2026 dismissed the petitioner’s anticipatory bail petition for the following reasons:

5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of

the case and the bad antecedents of the petitioner, who has 4 four previous cases of a similar nature, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3. Now, the present petition has been filed without any change in

circumstances after the dismissal of the petitioner’s earlier bail petition. This clearly shows that the petitioner has abused the process of law. Hence, I am not inclined to reconsider the earlier order. Page2 of 4

4. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No SMN To

1. Inspector of Police,

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras Page3 of 4

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

SMN Page4 of 4

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Mani vs State rep. by Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar