Rajivgandhi v. The State Rep. By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Rajivgandhi ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, CSCID Police, Tirupattur Unit, Tirupattur District.

Crime No.191 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.191 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Sathish Kumar For Respondent :

Mr.S.Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner was apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982, r/w Section 7(1) a(ii) of E.C. Act, 1955, in Crime No.191 of 1/4

2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 23.09.2025, based on secret information, the respondent police intercepted a TATA Sumo bearing Registration No.TN 49 X 4446 and found 26 bags containing 1,300 kilograms of PDS rice being transported illegally. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and has been falsely implicated in this case solely based on the confession of A2, who is the driver of the vehicle. He further submitted that the petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police while opposing the anticipatory bail to the petitioner reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are totally 2 accused in this case. The petitioner is ranked as A1. He further submitted that the investigation is still pending.

2/4

5. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the gravity of the offences, and the fact that the petitioner is alleged to have been involved in transporting 1,300 kilograms of PDS rice, this Court is of the considered view that granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner may result in petitioner involve in similar offences hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 30.10.2025 cda To 1.The Inspector of Police, CSCID Police, Tirupattur Unit, Tirupattur District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

cda 3/4

30.10.2025 4/4