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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL CRL OP.No.36136 of 2025 Balaji ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, CSCID-Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District.

[Crime No.335 of 2025] ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under 482 of BNSS Act, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.335 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Viswanathan For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner/ Accused apprehends arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 6(4) of TNSC(RDCS) Order 1982 r/w.Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C.Act, 1955 in Crime No.270 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 03.10.2025, the Civil Supplies Officer, Tiruvallur District along with his party were conducting 1/8

raid, at the time the petitioner along with other accused were found to be in illegal possession of 2000 Kgs., of PDS rice. Hence, the complaint. 3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged and he had been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish substantial sureties for his due release and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of 2000 Kgs., of PDS rice and that there are two previous case as against the petitioner and further, considering the gravity of offence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.

Considering the representations made by both sides and considering the nature of the offence, the entire properties were recovered from the co-accused and though two cases are pending against the petitioner in all cases he was granted bail in all cases, this Court is 2/8

inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

6.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [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 then from disclosing such facts of the Court or to any police officer. [c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

3/8

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

[e] the petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. [f] 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].

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

30.12.2025 ssn/mac Note:

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

4/8

To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District.

2. The Inspector of Police, CSCID-Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/8

P.DHANABAL ,J, ssn/mac 30.12.2025 6/8

Crl.O.P.No.36136 of 2025 P.DHANABAL.J.

Today the matter is listed under the caption "for being mentioned" at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner as the crime number in the order dated 30.12.2025 has been wrongly mentioned as Crime No.270 of 2025 instead of Crime No.335 of 2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent are present.

3. This Court has granted Anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide order of this Court, dated 30.12.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.36136 of 2025. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition shows that the case relates to Crime No.335 of 2025. However, the said order wrongly mentions the Crime Number as Crime No.270 of 2025.

4. Since the above error is typographical in nature, the Registry is directed to substitute Crime No.335 of 2025 in the place of Crime No.270 of 2025 wherever it appears in the order dated 30.12.2025 and issue a fresh order copy. Except the above correction, all other portions of the order, shall remain intact.

20.01.2026 vum 7/8

P.DHANABAL.J.

vum Crl.O.P.No.36136 of 2025 20.01.2026 8/8