Mohankumar v. State By, the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 4(1)(b) and 6 of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 and section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in Crime No.0112 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks Page2 of 5 anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that upon secret information about illegal hoarding and sale of LPG cylinders, the respondent police inspected the location along with revenue officials and found a large number of commercial gas cylinders being unloaded and stored in an unauthorised vacant site. Hence, this case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the local authorities excavated pits in the front of the petitioner's godown to construct a drain and in this connection, making it impossible for heavy lorries to enter the godown. Consequently, the petitioner safeguarded their cylinders to another place owned by them, which is 4 kms away from the gas agency to ensure their safety. He further submitted that the respondent police registered this FIR under the misconception that the petitioner is attempting to conceal the essential commodities. He also submitted that Sections 4(1)(b) and 6 of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 2000 and section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 are bailable in nature. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Page3 of 5

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that in the present scenario, concealment of gas cylinders should be viewed very seriously and the petitioner has concealed 249 LPG cylinders unauthorised in a secluded place not designated as godown. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only due to some activities done by the local authorities, the petitioner was not in a position to store LPG cylinders in the secluded area and this was only a temporary arrangement until the original premises could be restored to a usable state.

¶6I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶7Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also upon the submission made by the learned petitioner counsel it is seen that according to the petitioner offences involving are bailable in nature. Hence, the question of anticipatory bail does not arise. Thus, this Court is of the view that the present application is not maintainable. Page4 of 5

¶8Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application. 07-04-2026 SHL To:

¶1The Judicial Magistrate-2 Tiruppur

¶2The Inspector of Police, CSCID, Tiruppur Police Station, Tiruppur.

¶3The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras CRLoOPoNo.o8592oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPANoJ. SHL CRLoOPoNo.o8592oofo2026 07-04-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Mohankumar 2. Sangeetha ..Petitioners Vs State by, The Inspector of Police, CSCID, Tiruppur Police Station, Tiruppur. ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.0112 of 2026 on the file of respondent police. For Petitioner: Mr.S. Jeyakumar For Respondent: Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)