Dismissed¶27

Ramamoorthi v. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC25 Jun 2026CRL OP/16215/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023; Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2004 S.4(1)(C) and S.4(1-A)(ii); ID arrack 50 liters; wash 200 liters; Crime No.99 of 2026; PEW Attur Police Station Salem; Ramamoorthi v. State; Madras High Court; CRL OP No. 16215 of 2026; bail refused; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the impact of the alleged offence on society, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and held that he does not deserve its grant. ¶23

Ramamoorthi Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 16215 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

CRL OP No. 16215 of 2026

¶7

Ramamoorthi D.No. 32/5/1030, Keelatheru Sembur, P.N.Palayam Taluk, Salem District.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police PEW, Attur Police Station, Salem. Crime No.99 of 2026

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.99 of 2026 on the file of PEW, Attur Police Station, Salem.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr. T.Ganesan For Respondent(s): MS.R.S.INDIRA, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 4(1)(C) and 4(1-A) (ii) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2004 in Crime No.99 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

Page1 of 4

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

CRL OP No. 16215 of 2026

¶19

The allegation against the petitioner is that, he was found in illegal possession of 50 liters of ID arrack and 200 liters of wash. Hence, the complaint.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner has no previous cases pending against him. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶22

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

¶23

Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the impact of the alleged offence on society, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner does not deserve the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶24

__________ Page2 of 4

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

CRL OP No. 16215 of 2026

¶27