BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Ninth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.13086 of 2011 RAJESH ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE M.KALLUPATTI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.93/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S.P.SENGUTTUARASAN ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : MR.A.RAMAR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SEC.438 CR.P.C. ORDER : THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER :- The petitioner/Accused No.1 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 4(1)-A of TNP Act, in Crime No.9. of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a licence holder for selling the arrack and the case has been registered against the petitioner along with other accused under Section 4(1)-A of TNP Act, in Crime No.93 of 2011 and A2 and A3 were already arrested and enlarged on bail and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor[Crl side] would submit that the petitioner has sold the brandy after the time stipulated by the Government and hence the case has been registered against the petitioner and others. He fairly conceded that A2 and A3 were arrested and released on bail and the investigation is going on and hence he pray for dismissal of the petition. 4.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, it is seen that the alleged occurrence took place on 19.09.2011 at 10.30 p.m., and the case has been registered under Section 4(1)-A of TNP Act, in Crime No.93 of 2011. Admittedly, the petitioner is a licence holder for having TASMAC shop but the case of the prosecution is that he sold the brandy after the time stipulated by the Government and even though the case was registered against the petitioner, he neither interfered with the investigation nor absconding from the jurisdiction, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 5.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti, and on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-[Rupees Ten Thousand only] with two sureties each for a like https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 6.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 29/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, USILAMPATTI. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, M. KALLUPATTI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC TO M/S.P.SENGUTTUARASAN, ADVOCATE SR.NO.34202. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13086 of 2011 Date :29/09/2011 2P/6C RPB : 30.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/