Sathyaraj v. The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Sathyaraj S/o. Palani No.4/407, Varakoorankottai, Kalappampadi Post, Pennagaram Taluk, Pudupatti .

Dharmapuri - 636811 ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, C.S.CID. Police Station, Krishnagiri District, Crime No.165 of 2025 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to grant an Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before any court in connection with the case in Crime No. 165 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. Balaji T For Respondent(s):

MR.P.DHILEEPAN, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL SIDE)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 6(4) of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (RDCS) Order 1982 and 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in Crime No.165 of 2025 on the file of the

respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other accused has illegally transported 5,100kgs of PDS rice. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this is the third anticipatory bail application. 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.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are four previous cases similar in nature against the petitioner and that the petitioner is ranked as A1. He further submitted that the earlier anticipatory bail applications were dismissed and that there is no change in circumstances in the present application. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is seen that the petitioner has four previous cases of the same nature and this Court would scrutinize the contact and character of the petitioner, which clearly demonstrates that, as and when the petitioner was

enlarged on bail, he misused the liberty granted by this Court. And apart from that, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, there is no change in circumstances from the dismissal of the earlier applications, and hence this application is dismissed. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 24-04-2026 DRL To 1.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

2.The Inspector of Police, C.S.CID. Police Station, Krishnagiri District, Crime No.165 of 2025

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 24-04-2026