Thirukumar v. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Cscid

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Thirukumar ...Petitioner/Accused

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Civil Supply CID, Dindigul. (Crime No. 322 of 2025)

...Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Arun Kumar

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.K.M.Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 322 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 6(4) of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (RDCS) Order, 1982, and Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in Crime No. 322 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that on 23.12.2025, when the defacto complainant went for surveillance, they found that the petitioner was in illegal possession of 1100 kg of PDS rice. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) fairly submits that the property was recovered and the petitioner has no previous case. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and considering the facts that the petitioner has no previous case and the property was recovered, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to 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 Judicial Magistrate-III, Dindigul, and on further conditions that: [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of thirty days and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation. [c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature. [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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 accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J)

24.03.2026 apd

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate-III, Dindigul.

2.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supply CID, Dindigul.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRLeOP(MD).eNo.e5736eofe2026 oooooP.oDHANABAL,oJ oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooapd oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooORDER oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooIN oooooooooooooooooooooooooCRLoOP(MD)oNo.o5736oofo2026 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooDateoo:o24.03.2026