Saravanan v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.25887 of 2025 Saravanan ... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep by The Inspector of Police, CSCID Police Station, Dharmapuri Police Station, ... Respondent (Crime No.169 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.169 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thenrajan For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 6(4) of TN Schedule Commodities (RDCS) Order 1982 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential 1/4

Commodities Act, 1955 in Crime No.169 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that based on the secret information, the respondent police went to the scene of occurrence and found that the petitioner along with other accused were involved in illegal transportation of 7100 kgs of PDS rice for the purpose of selling the same in the black market Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that based on the confession of the co-accused, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the petitioner is the owner of rice who procured and transported the same to the other accused. He further reported that the petitioner is involved in ten previous cases of similar nature and the petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail petition was dismissed by this Court on 12.08.2025 in Crl.OP.No.22375 of 2025. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 2/4

5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the gravity of an offence committed by the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that there is no change of circumstances after the dismissal of the petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail petition, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 22.09.2025 Vv To

1. The Inspector of Police, CSCID Police Station, Dharmapuri Police Station.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

3/4

Vv Crl.O.P.No.25887 of 2025 22.09.2025 4/4

5/4