M.Prashanth Vs State Represented by

M.Prashanth vs State Represented by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Feb 27, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1427794

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/1427794
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Feb 27, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/4881/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.Prashanth

Respondent

State Represented by

Excerpt

.....sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner / accused on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police in crime no.33 of 2026, on the file of the inspector of police, meicheri police station, salem / respondent herein. for petitioner : m/s.dhalapathy vignesh kumar for respondent : m/s.j.r.archana government advocate (crl. side) *********orderthe petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.01.2026 for the alleged offence punishable under sections 4(1)(c) & 4(1)(a) of tamil nadu prohibition (amendment) act 2024, in crime no.33 of 2026 on the file of respondent police seeks bail.2. the case of the prosecution is that, based on the secretinformation, the respondent police conducted an inspection at the petitioner’s residence and recovered 192 liquor bottles (180 ml each). further investigation revealed that the petitioner, along with other accused, had purchased liquor from tasmac outlets to sell the same in the black market at an exorbitant rate. consequently, the case was registered.3. it is seen that, this is the second anticipatory bail petition filedby the petitioner, earlier petitioner’s bail petition was dismissed by stating the following reasons: “considering the adverse antecedents of the petitioner, the significant quantity of contraband seized, and the high probability that the petitioner may indulge in similar offences if enlarged on bail, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail”4. now, without any change in circumstances, present petition is filed. hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.5. accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. nvi to1. the inspector of police, 2.the public prosecutor, high court, madras.k. rajasekar, j.nvi

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.02.2026
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
M.Prashanth ... Petitioner -vs- State Represented by Inspector of Police, (Crime No.33 of 2026) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner / accused on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.33 of 2026, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Meicheri Police Station, Salem / respondent herein. For Petitioner : M/s.Dhalapathy Vignesh Kumar For Respondent : M/s.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side) *********

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.01.2026 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 4(1)(C) & 4(1)

(A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2024, in Crime No.33 of 2026 on the file of respondent police seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, based on the secret

information, the respondent police conducted an inspection at the petitioner’s residence and recovered 192 liquor bottles (180 ml each). Further investigation revealed that the petitioner, along with other accused, had purchased liquor from TASMAC outlets to sell the same in the black market at an exorbitant rate. Consequently, the case was registered.

3. It is seen that, this is the second anticipatory bail petition filed

by the petitioner, earlier petitioner’s bail petition was dismissed by stating the following reasons: “Considering the adverse antecedents of the petitioner, the significant quantity of contraband seized, and the high probability that the petitioner may indulge in similar offences if enlarged on bail, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail”

4. Now, without any change in circumstances, present petition is filed. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. nvi To

1. The Inspector of Police, 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

nvi

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties M.Prashanth vs State Represented by Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar