CRL OP(MD)/17980/2017 of N. RAMESH Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 28 December 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand SeventeenPRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN

CRL OP(MD) No.17980 of 2017

N. RAMESH

... PETITIONER / 2[nd] ACCUSED

Vs

THE STATE REP.BY,THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CSCID, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT, CRIME NO.142/2017 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.MAHALINGAM Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of therespondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections6(2),6(3),6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C.Act,1955, in Crime No.142 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police,seeks anticipatory bail.

2.Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3.The case of the prosecution is that while the police partywas in regular vehicle checkup, they found that the petitioner/A2and other accused persons were in possession of 910 tons of PDSrice. Subsequently, the respondent police seized the vehicles withrice and arrested the accused persons/A4, A7 & A8. Thereby, case wasregistered against the accused persons.

4.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitionerthat the petitioner is the Manager of four Ration Shops and he isnot at all an accused. Based on the confession statement given byA4, A7 and A8, the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case.He further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person andhe did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution andprays for anticipatory bail.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that thehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/petitioner is one of the accused, who involved in illegal transportof PDS rice and that the police have seized one lorry, one van and one two wheeler. According to the prosecution, when this Court wasabout to dismiss the case filed by the petitioner seekinganticipatory bail in Crl.O.P(MD).No.17682 of 2017, on merits, thelearned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Courtto withdraw the case and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on21.12.2017.

6.Mere withdrawal of the earlier anticipatory bail petitioncannot be considered as one of the change of circumstances, buthowever taking note of the serious offence committed by thepetitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner is not entitled toget any relief in this anticipatory bail petition. Accordingly, thisCriminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/-

28/12/2017

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CSCID, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT CSCID, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.