Revathi v. State Rep. By Its Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Revathi ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep. by its Inspector of Police, Civil Suppy-CID, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

Crime No.52 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.52 of 2026, on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner(s):

M/s.Camyles Gandhi W For Respondent(s):

Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 6

(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7 (1) (a) (ii) of EC Act, 1955, in Crime No.52 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Dhanalakshmi was found in illegal possession of 1100 kgs of PDS rice. During the investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner and one Shakthikani acted as financiers for the illicit

trade. Specifically the said Dhanalakshmi stated that they provided necessary funds and instructed her to procure and possess the PDS rice. Hence, the complaint.

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

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that petitioner and other accused were purchasing the PDS rice from the public and selling it at a higher price in the local area. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions. 6.From the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), it is clear that the petitioner was in illegal possessed of 1100 kg of PDS rice. Considering the nature of accusation and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, this Court is of the view that, the petitioner does not

deserve anticipatory bail. Hence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 18-03-2026 ep To 1.The Inspector of Police, Civil Suppy-CID, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

ep 18-03-2026