Senthilkumar @ Senthil v. State By The Inspector Of Police

Crl.O.P.No.16408 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 6(4) of the TN Scheduled Commodities (RDCS) Order 1982, Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in Crime No.100 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was in illegal possession of 14 tons of PDS Rice without any valid permission or license. Hence, the complaint.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed on him. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that there are totally three accused, in which, the petitioner is arrayed as A1. He would further submit that the petitioner was in illegal possession of 14 tons of PDS rice and the same has been recovered. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the huge quantity of essential commodities seized, as custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 15.07.2022 Lpp

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Lpp Crl.O.P.No.16408 of 2022 15.07.2022