Muthu vs State Rep by - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1739312
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnJan-28-2025
Case NumberCRL OP/1872/2025
JudgeHonourable Mr Justice a.D.Jagadish Chandira
AppellantMUTHU
RespondentState Rep by
Excerpt:
in the high court of judicature at madrasdated: 28-01-2025coramthe 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).orderthe 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 innocentand 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 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
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