Nagaraj v. State By

P. DHANABAL, J.

The petitioner / accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the 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.212 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the other accused had transported 1050 kgs of PDS rice without any permission or license from the State Government. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not involved in the offences as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that based on confession statement given by A1, the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the alleged vehicle and in which 1050 kgs of PDS rice has been illegally transported by the other 1/4

accused. He would further submit that there is one previous case against the petitioner and the co-accused has been granted bail. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the nature of offences and considering the quantity of material captured and also considering the fact that co-accused has been granted bail, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

2/4

[b] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

[c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.2023.

22.08.2024 bkn 3/4

P.DHANABAL, J.

bkn To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri

2. The Inspector of Police, C.S.C.I.D. Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

CRL OP.No.19941 of 2024 22.08.2024 4/4