Jayanthi v. State Rep By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.09.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.OP.No.13733 of 2020 Jayanthi ... Petitioner /2nd Accused Vs.

State rep. By its The Inspector of Police, Civil Supply, CI.D., Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District (Cr. No.11 of 2020) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.11 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohammad Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(This case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 6(4) Tamil Nadu Schedule Commodities (Regulation of Distribution through card system) order 1982 r/w section 7(1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 in Crime No.11 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.01.2020 on receipt of a secret information, a search was conducted in Kanamoor Bus stop (Burgur to kuppam road), there was an illegal transportation of 30 bags of PDS rice (each bag containing 50 kgs), totally 1500 kgs in one TATA Sumo bearing Registration No.TN-23-AU-7645. On enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was the owner of the PDS rice, which is meant for supply to the consumers below poverty line and hence a case has been registered against her.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner(A2) is an innocent person and she has not involved in any of the offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner was found in illegal transportation of 1500kgs of PDS rice and she is the owner of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

rice and the vehicle. He further submitted that the petitioner is having three previous cases in similar nature. Hence, he vehemently oppose for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the previous antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

-sd/- 04/09/2020 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, NO.I, KRISHNAGIRI 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CIVIL SUPPLY C.I.D,KRISHNAGIRI, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.

CC to M/S.E.KANNADASAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.13733/2020 Date :04/09/2020 RVR 23/09/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/