G.Kumaran Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police

G.Kumaran vs State represented by The Inspector of Police

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Mar 26, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1427495

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/1427495
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan
Decided On: Mar 26, 2026
Case Number: /5165/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

G.Kumaran

Respondent

State represented by The Inspector of Police

Excerpt

.....the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that thiscourt has granted anticipatory bail to one mr.gopal alias gopalakrishnan, in crime 24 of 2026, and this is a crime no.23 of 2026 and the fir is nothing but a replica to crime no.24 of 2026.6. at this juncture, the learned government advocate (crl.side) strongly opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the first petitioner has got four previous cases.7. this court is very serious in respect of the lotteries act cases, as thesame would have serious impact upon the society, especially the poor people. further, the first petitioner has got four previous cases and the second petitioner has two previous case. hence, both of them do not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail.8. the factum of previous case against the second petitioner was notbrought to this court at the time when the earlier application was considered. in such a view of peculiar facts, this court is of the firm view that as and when the petitioners were enlarged on bail, they misused the same and subverted the justice. therefore, this court is of the firm view that the petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail. page3 of 59. accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 26-03-2026 dk to1. the judicial magistrate, vellore, 2.the inspector of police, bagayam police station,3. the public prosecutor, high court of madras. page4 of 5c.kumarappan, j.dk crl op no. 5165 of 2026 26-03-2026 page5 of 5

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 5165 of 2026

1. G.Kumaran S/o.Gangatharan, 5A, Patel Street, Bhuvaneshwaripetrai, Gudiyatham Taluk,

2. Gopal @ Gopalakrishnan, S/o. Vishwanathan, 81st street, NSK Nager, Neloorpet, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District - 632602. ...Petitioners/Accused Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police, Bagayam Police Station, Crime No.23/2026. ...Respondent/ Complainant

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Cr.No.23/2026 on the file of the respondent, Bagayam Police Station, Vellore District. Page1 of 5 For Petitioners : Mr.Rajasekar M For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 5, 7(3) of the Lotteries Regulation Act, 1998 and 318(4) of BNS in Crime No.23 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, along with other accused, were involved in the illegal selling of government-banned out-of-state lottery tickets, including Kerala lottery tickets. Hence, the case.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent had

strongly opposed the anticipatory bail application, as this case involves the Lotteries Act, and if the petitioners had been enlarged on bail, they would become emboldened him to commit similar offences and also the same would have come cascading effect upon the vulnerable poor people. Page2 of 5

5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this

Court has granted anticipatory bail to one Mr.Gopal alias Gopalakrishnan, in Crime 24 of 2026, and this is a Crime No.23 of 2026 and the FIR is nothing but a replica to Crime No.24 of 2026.

6. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) strongly opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the first petitioner has got four previous cases.

7. This Court is very serious in respect of the Lotteries Act cases, as the

same would have serious impact upon the society, especially the poor people. Further, the first petitioner has got four previous cases and the second petitioner has two previous case. Hence, both of them do not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail.

8. The factum of previous case against the second petitioner was not

brought to this Court at the time when the earlier application was considered. In such a view of peculiar facts, this Court is of the firm view that as and when the petitioners were enlarged on bail, they misused the same and subverted the justice. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail. Page3 of 5

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 26-03-2026 dk To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, 2.The Inspector of Police, Bagayam Police Station,

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Page4 of 5

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

dk CRL OP No. 5165 of 2026 26-03-2026 Page5 of 5

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties G.Kumaran vs State represented by The Inspector of Police Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan