Srinivasan v. State By The Inspector Of Police

Crl.O.P.No.20540 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(i) a(ii) of E.C. Act 1955 in Crime No. 137 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.08.2022, the respondent police were on their regular patrol duty, at that time, they interpreted and found that the driver of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA01-AB-8256 had transported 10,000 Kgs of PDS Rice, without getting any permission. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A2 and A3 and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that based on the confession statement of A1, the petitioners, who were the vehicle owner and rice owner were implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Anu

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that PDS rice involved in this case is 10 tonnes, which is a huge quantity. He would further submit that there are two previous cases pending as against the petitioners. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the huge quantity of PDS rice involved in this case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are very much required in this case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 29.08.2022 Anu Crl.O.P.No.20540 of 2022 (1/2) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis