BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Tenth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13420 of 2011 D.S. BHARATHI ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED 1 Vs STATE REP BY:: THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE CIVIL SUPPLIES CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, TIRUNELVELI, CRIME NO.408/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. G.PRABHU RAJADURAI Advocate For Respondent : MR. K.S. DURAIPANDI, GOVTERNMENT ADVOCATE (CRL SDIE) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest, the petitioner, in Crime No.408 of 2011 on the file of the respondent Police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 and 17 of TMK (RT) order 1973 read with 7(i)(a) of EC Act 1955, has come forward with this Petition seeking for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, on 27.09.2011, the Taluk Supply Officer made surprise inspection in N.S.R. Steel Factory at Palavoor, Kanyakumari District. During the same, it was found that the workers in the said factory were found in possession of 650 kgs of PDS rice and 40 litres of Kerosene meant for public distribution system. On these allegations, the present case has been registered. 3. Admittedly the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. She happened to be the proprietary of the steel factory. The workers were brought from Bihar. The third accused in this case is also a person from Bihar. In his confession, he has not implicated the petitioner at all. Simply because the petitioner happened to be the owner of the factory, the petitioner is sought to be arrested, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned counsel for the petitioner contended. 4. I have perused the records and also considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side). 5. A perusal of the same would go to show that except the fact that the petitioner happened to be the proprietary of the steel factory, there is no overt act attributed against her. Even in the confession given by one of the accused, there is nothing stated about the petitioner. 6. In such view of the matter, I find prima facie, the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on her appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirunelveli, 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. sd/- 10/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, TIRUNELVELI 2 DO THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI 3 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE CIVIL SUPPLIES CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, TIRUNELVELI 4 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 1. CC to M/S. G.PRABHU RAJADURAI Advocate SR.No.34977: DM::2011:OCTOBER:::11:: ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13420 of 2011 2P:6C:: Date :10/10/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/