BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty First day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.16822 of 2011 1 THIRUPATHI 2 M.VELMURUGAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 Vs STATE REP. BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TEPPAKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY CRIME NO.1386/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.P. SARAVANAPANDIAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused Nos.1 and 2 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) order, 1982 r/w 7(1) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in Crime Number 1386 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. Heard Mr.P.Saravanapandian, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioners have been ranked as A1 and A2 in this case, in which a complaint was given by the Inspector of Police and the same was registered by himself and he is also investigating the case. He would further submit in his argument that such registration by the same complainant is forbidden by various judgments of this Court. In that aspect, the petitioners are having a prima facie case for getting anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the petitioners were represented as A-1 and A2 on the confession given by A3 stating that the PDS rice to the tune of 40 bags. He would also submit that the PDS rice meant for poor were taken away by this accused persons and it is a serious matter and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that no doubt, smuggling of PDS rice meant for the benefit of poor persons is a serious one. But however the complaint has been lodged by the same Station House Officer, who has registered the complaint. I could see that the registration of complaint is prima facie not sustained. Under the said circumstances, the petitioners have got a prima facie case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with the following conditions: i) Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai and on executing 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 learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further condition. ii) that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. iii) The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. iv) The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 21/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.III MADURAI 2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TPPAKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY +1. CC to M/S.P. SARAVANAPANDIAN Advocate SR.No.44944 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16822 of 2011 Date :21/12/2011 SMA/23.12.2011/6C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/