Mr Appu Alias M Ramkumar v. State

P. DHANABAL.J., The petitioner / Accused, who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 7(3) of Lotteries Regulation Act, 1998 and 318(4) of BNS 2023 in connection with the Crime No.527 of 2024, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.10.2024, at approximately 1:00 p.m., the respondent police received secret information from a confidential informer. While on routine patrol near the Mariyamman Temple bridge, they observed several individuals attempting to leave the area upon seeing the police. One person fled, while another was apprehended and found in illegal possession of banned lottery tickets. Subsequently, the respondent police after enquiry registered an FIR against the petitioner along with the other accused. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that he is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, he would abide by any condition imposed by this Court. He would submit that co-

accused have been granted anticipatory bail. Hence, the petitioner granted anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that on 24.10.2024, the respondent police, acting on secret information, apprehended the accused near the Mariyamman Temple bridge and found him in illegal possession of banned lottery tickets. During enquiry, it was found that the petitioner instructed the accused to commit the offense of possessing banned lottery tickets. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that there is 11 previous case pending against the petitioner. Hence, he objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side, considering the nature of offence involved in this case and considering the fact that even the petitioner has some previous cases, all the cases are not similar in nature and also taking note of the fact the co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner

subject to the following conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of 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 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 each 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 daily at 10.00 a.m. for 30 days;

[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.

30.10.2024 shk To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate I, Krishnagiri

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 3.The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Town Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

P.DHANABAL,J shk 30.10.2024