V.Pichandi v. State Rep By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 02.02.2021 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN Crl.O.P.No.1380 of 2021 V.Pichandi ... Petitioner Vs.

State Represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, CSCID Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District, (Crime No.125 of 2020) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge to the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.125 of 2020 on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kirshnamoorthy For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Addl. Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 6(4) of the Tamilnadu Scheduled Commodities (RDCS) Order 1982 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in Crime No.125 of 2020, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there are totally six accused involved in this case and the petitioner is ranked as A1. The allegation is that A2 to A6 transported 180 bags (50 kgs each) of rice illegally. Based on the confession, all the accused brought the rice from the petitioner and transported the same to Karnataka. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not indulged any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that only for statistical purpose, a case has been foisted against the petitioner. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of 180 bags (50 kgs each) pf PDS rice illegally. He further submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he was involved in five previous cases. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner and taking note of the submission that the petitioner is a habitual offender and that there are five previous cases pending against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

-sd/- 02/02/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE I, THIRUVANNAMALAI 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CSCID THIRUVANNAMALAI DIST.

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.M.KRISHNAMOORTHY Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.1380/2021 Date :02/02/2021 ksm10/02/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/