CRL OP(MD)/17986/2017 of PANDA MURUGAN @ MURUGAN 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.17986 of 2017

PANDA MURUGAN @ MURUGAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.3

Vs

THE STATE REP.BY,THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CIVIL SUPPLIES CID, MADURAI, (CRIME NO.203/2017) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.T.DHANDAPANI 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/A3, 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) ofEssential Commodities Act, 1955, in Crime No.203 of 2017 on thefile of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3.The case of the prosecution is that on 05.12.2017 when thePolice party was on surveillance, they found that two lorriesbearing Registration Nos.TN-28-V6162 and TN-67-A-3252 carrying on aboard “ Civil Supplies Urgent” were parked at Kalmedu NarikuravarColony. On inspection, it is found that A1, who is a transportcontractor of Tamil Nadu Civil Supply Corporation transported 86bags of rice (each contains 50 Kgs) and 110 bags of rice (eachcontains 50 kgs) through the above said lorries respectively. Therespondent police seized 210 bags of PDS rice (each contains 50 kgs)along with vehicles. Based on the complaint, case was registered forthe above said offences

4.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitionerthat A1 is the owner of the Rice Mill and the petitioner/A3 isworking as Manager under A1. While transporting the rice bags fromthe Rice Mill to the shop, the respondent intercepted and seized thehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/vehicles with rice. He further submitted that the petitioner is aninnocent person and he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence,he prays for anticipatory bail.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted thatthere are totally eight accused in this case. A1 was alreadyarrested and released on bail. Since A2 have previous case, he wasdetained under Goondas Act. Except this petitioner, A4 to A8 weregranted anticipatory bail by this Court.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case andtaking note of the fact that A1 and A2 are the prime culprits andthat A1, who is the owner of the Mill, has been arrested andreleased on bail and A2 has been arrested and detained under GoondasAct and that A4 to A8 were granted anticipatory bail by this Court,and also taking note of the fact that A3 is only the Manager of theRice Mill, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to thepetitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be releasedon bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within aperiod of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai oncondition that petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum ofRs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for alike sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the policeofficer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learnedMagistrate concerned and on further condition that; [a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent policedaily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as andwhen required for interrogation;[b] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witnesseither during investigation or trial; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either duringinvestigation or trial.

[d] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learnedMagistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actionagainst the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditionshave been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learnedMagistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

sd/-

28/12/2017

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.III, MADURAI.

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MADURAI DISTRICT.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CIVIL SUPPLIES CID, MADURAI.

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.T.DHANDAPANI Advocate SR.No.37115