Muthu vs State Rep by

MUTHU vs State Rep by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 28, 2025

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1739312

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/1739312
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice a.D.Jagadish Chandira
Decided On: Jan 28, 2025
Case Number: CRL OP/1872/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

MUTHU

Respondent

State Rep by

Excerpt

.....grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.4. in contrast, the learned government advocate (crl.side) appearing for therespondent police opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner stating that the petitioner, along with co-accused/a2, was found in possession of 20 liters of id arrack. the petitioner is the accused/a1, hails from andhra pradesh. furthermore, he submits that the petitioner has four previous cases pending against him, two cases from the year 2017, and one each from the year 2023 and 2024, including the present case. granting anticipatory bail may enable the petitioner to commit similar offences in the future.5. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government advocate (crl side) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.6. this is the first application for anticipatory bail. considering the facts andcircumstances of the case, the petitioner's bad antecedents, with four previous cases pending against him, this court finds no change in circumstances that would warrant granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. therefore, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.7. accordingly, the criminal original petition stands dismissed. klt to 1the state rep. by, the inspector of police, ranipet district. (crime no.403 of 2024).a.d. jagadish chandira, j.klt

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-01-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA M. Muthu, S/o. Moorthy, Palaiyam Village, Chittoor District, State of Andhra Pradesh. Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Ranipet District. (Crime No.403 of 2024) Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): Mr. K. Sathish Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Santhosh, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side).

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(B) and 4(1-A)(ii) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2024, in Crime No.403 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with another individual, was found in possession of 20 liters of ID Arrack. Hence, this case.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent

and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner has no connection to the alleged offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. In contrast, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

respondent police opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner stating that the petitioner, along with co-accused/A2, was found in possession of 20 liters of ID Arrack. The petitioner is the accused/A1, hails from Andhra Pradesh. Furthermore, he submits that the petitioner has four previous cases pending against him, two cases from the year 2017, and one each from the year 2023 and 2024, including the present case. Granting anticipatory bail may enable the petitioner to commit similar offences in the future.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl Side) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

6. This is the first application for anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, the petitioner's bad antecedents, with four previous cases pending against him, this Court finds no change in circumstances that would warrant granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. klt To 1The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Ranipet District. (Crime No.403 of 2024).

A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

klt

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2025 Same Parties MUTHU vs State Rep by Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice a.D.Jagadish Chandira