Gopinath v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 21/07/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI

1.Gopinath, S/o.Deivendran,

2.Thangapandi, S/o.Muthuvellai.

: Petitioners/A4 & A5

Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District. (Crime No.407 of 2025) : Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.P.Manikandan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash,

Government Advocate (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS. PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.407 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A4 & A5, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(B), 4(1-A)(ii)of Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2024, in Crime No.407 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 09.07.2025 at about 01.00 pm., when the defacto complainant/Sub-Inspector of Police, while on patrol duty accompanied by other police personnel, noticed a group of individuals, including the petitioners (A4 and A5), standing in a suspicious manner with three white bags in their possession. On seeing the police, A4 and A5 fled the scene, arousing further suspicion. A prompt search of the location where the group was standing led to the recovery and seizure of 336 bottles of Monitor Deluxe Brandy (180 ml each) from the white bags. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that only on the basis of confession given by the first accused, the petitioners have been added as accused.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that on

09.07.2025 at about 01.00 pm., when the defacto complainant/Sub-Inspector of Police, while on patrol duty accompanied by other police personnel, noticed a group of individuals, including the petitioners (A4 and A5), standing in a suspicious manner with three white bags in their possession. On seeing the police, the petitioners escaped from the scene of occurrence. He further submitted that A4 is having 28 previous cases and A5 is having 31 previous cases and the first accused has already been arrested and is in custody and the investigation in this case is pending. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail.

¶5Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account of the fact that the first accused is still in custody and the investigation is pending and taking note of the bad antecedents of the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail at this point of time. CRLeOP(MD).eNo.11985eofe2025

6.Accordingly,othisoCriminaloOriginaloPetitionoisodismissed.o oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosd/- oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo21/07/2025 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooo oooo ooooooooooo/oTRUEoCOPYo/ ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo/2025 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooo ooooooooSub-AssistantoRegistraro oooooo(ooC.S.oIoo/ooIIoo/ooIIIo/ooIVoo) ooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooMaduraioBenchoofoMadrasoHighoCourt, ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooMaduraio-o625o023.oo das TO 1ooTHEoINSPECTORoOFoPOLICE,o DINDIGULoTALUKoPOLICEoSTATION, DINDIGULoDISTRICT. 2ooooTHEooADDITIONALoPUBLICoPROSECUTOR, MADURAIoBENCHoOFoMADRASoHIGHoCOURT,o MADURAI.o ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooORDER ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.11985oofo2025 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooDateoo:21/07/2025 AS/13.08.2025/4P/3C MaduraioBenchoofooMadrasoHighoCourtoisoissuingoocertifiedocopiesoinothisoformatofromo17/07/2023.o