Nalani Kumar v. State Rep.By

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J., The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu Schedules Commodities (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in Crime No.175 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.05.2024, when the respondent police were carrying out their daily patrol relating to Essential Commodities Smuggling and hoarding, they found that the petitioner along with other accused was indulged in illegal transportation of 2900 Kgs of PDS rice. Hence, the respondent police registered the case against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is the second anticipatory bail application and that the earlier anticipatory bail application was dismissed by this Court on 28.06.2024.

He further submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. However, on instructions, the learned counsel further submits that the petitioner without prejudice his rights, on his own volition, is ready and willing to contribute some amount to any charitable trust as may be directed by this Court and he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The respondent has filed a detailed Counter.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submits that there are totally 4 accused in this case and that the petitioner is ranked as A4. He further submits that the petitioner along with other accused was indulged in illegal transportation of 2900 kgs of PDS rice. He would further submit that the petitioner is having 11 previous cases of similar nature registered against him and investigation is at preliminary stage in all the cases and that, if the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail, he would tamper the witnesses. Hence, he raised strong objection to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and also the fact that the petitioner is having 11 previous cases of similar nature registered against him and also the total quantity of contraband involved in this case is very huge and there is no change of circumstances, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

25.07.2024 ssi

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J., ssi 25.07.2024