Madras High Court
Sumathi v. State rep.by
- Decision date
- 2026-06-29
- Text availability
- Full text
- Judges
- C. Kumarappan
Source: Indian High Court Judgments, AWS Open Data (CC BY 4.0) ↗
Connected provisions and cases
No further provision or case links are recorded.
Judgment text
CRL OP No. 16351 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 16351 of 2026 Sumathi ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep.by The Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Vellore. Cr.No.190/2026. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to direct the release of the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the Police in Cr.No.190 of 2026, on the file of respondent, the Inspector of Police, North Police station, Vellore district. For Petitioner(s): Karthic Raja M For Respondent(s): R.S.Indira Government Advocate(Crl.side) ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 4(1)(A) and Section 4(1)(C) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment )Act, 2024 in Crime No. 190 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. __________ Page1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 16351 of 2026 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.05.2026, based on the secret information, the respondent police went to the place of occurrence and found that petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of 18 liquor bottles viz., (1)180 ml Old Chef Rum No.5 bottles, (2) 180 ml Black Parrel Brandy No.4 bottles, (3) 180 ml Men Club Brandy No.4 Bottles, (4) 180 ml Express Brandy No. 1 bottle (5) 180 ml Old Secret Brandy No. 4 bottles. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and she been falsely implicated in the present case and that she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the Respondent Police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that 18 previous cases were pending against the petitioner. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record. __________ Page2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 16351 of 2026 6. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), it is seen that petitioner is having 18 previous cases pending against her. In view of the same, if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, she may be emboldened to indulge in similar offences in future without fear of law. Hence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 29-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nr To: 1. Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore. 2. The Inspector of Police,
North Police Station, Vellore. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. __________ Page3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 16351 of 2026 C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NR CRL OP No. 16351 of 2026 29-06-2026 __________ Page4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis