Saravanakumar Vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector Of Police, Illuppur

Saravanakumar vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector Of Police, Illuppur

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 30, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1662265

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/1662265
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar
Decided On: Jun 30, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP(MD)/12880/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Saravanakumar

Respondent

The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector Of Police, Illuppur

Excerpt

.....case and reported that the petitioner has four previous cases. investigating is still pending. he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.5. this court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.6. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, though thepetitioner has four previous cases, admittedly it is not the case of curious liquor, it is only liquor purchased from tasmac and also considering the period of incarceration, i am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. [a] accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned judicial magistrate, illuppur, pudukkottai district, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the learned judicial magistrate, illuppur, pudukkottai district, at 10.30 a.m., on all working days, for a period of three weeks, thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make anyinducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the factsof the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned judicial magistrate/trial court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned magistrate/trial court himself as laid down by the hon'ble supreme court in p.k.shaji vs. state of kerala [(2005)air scw 51730]. [g] if the accused.....

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 30.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP(MD). No. 12880 of 2026 Saravanakumar ...Petitioner Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Illuppur Police Station, Pudukkottai District. (Crime No.155 of 2026) ...Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.B.Mahendrarajan Advocate For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Bail in Cr.No. 155 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner / Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.06.2026, for the offences punishable under Section 4(1)(C) r/w 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, in Crime No.155 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused are found in possession of 26 bottles of 180 ml. liquor bottles for the purpose of selling the same to the general public.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He is in custody from 18.06.2026 and ready to abide any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the State reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the petitioner has four previous cases. Investigating is still pending. He opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, though the

petitioner has four previous cases, admittedly it is not the case of curious liquor, it is only liquor purchased from Tasmac and also considering the period of incarceration, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Illuppur, Pudukkottai District, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Illuppur, Pudukkottai District, at 10.30 a.m., on all working days, for a period of three weeks, thereafter as and when required for interrogation; [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts

of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 51730]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS. (K R S J) 30.06.2026 TM To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Illuppur, Pudukkottai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Illuppur Police Station, Pudukkottai District. (Crime No.155 of 2026) 3.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 12880 of 2026 Date : 30.06.2026

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Saravanakumar vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By The Inspector ... Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Rajasekar