BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty First day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) Nos.12559, 12564 and 12603 of 2011 1 SALIM 2 VASU @ VASUDEVAN 3 AKBAR ALI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 6, 7 AND 11 IN CRL OP.12559 OF 2011 1. A. ARUN KUMAR 2. A. VIJAYA KUMAR 3. T. VEL SHANKAR ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 8, 9 AND 10 IN CRL OP.12564 OF 2011 SEVUGA PERUMAL ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 5 IN CRL OP.12603 OF 2011 Vs STATE REP BY:: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CSCID, MADURAI, CR NO. 497/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT IN ALL THE CRL OP'S For Petitioner in CRL OP. 12559 OF 2011 : M/S. T.LENIN KUMAR Advocate For Petitioner in CRL OP. 12564 OF 2011 : M/S.A.JAYARAMACHANDRAN,Advocate For Petitioner in CRL OP. 12603 OF 2011 : M/S.N. MOHIDEEN BASHA, Advocate For Respondent : MR. A. RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, IN ALL THE PETITIONS PETITIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDERS : The Court Made the following orders :- In Crl.O.P(MD)No.12559 of 2011 the petitioners/Accused Nos. 6,7 and 11 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 17 of TNK(RT) Order-1974 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in Crime No.497 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.In Crl.O.P(MD)No.12564 of 2011 the petitioners/Accused Nos. 8,9 and 10 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 17 of TNK(RT) Order-1973 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ r/w Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in Crime No.497 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 3.In Crl.O.P(MD)No.12603 of 2011 the petitioner/Accused No.5 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 17 of Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order-1973 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in Crime No.497 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners A5 to A11 would submit that the case of the prosecution is on 15.09.2011 the vehicle belonging to A11 bearing Registration No.TN-59-H-6645 was intercepted near the Melur-Sivagangai junction at the time in C-2 chamber, 1540 litters of kerosene worth of Rs.23,500/- has been found the vehicle driven by A1 who is a Driver and after his arrest he has given a confession and on the basis of confession A1 has stated that the kerosene has been transported to the Thiagaraja Automobiles; A8 to A10 are the partners and A7 is the Manager of Thiyagaraja Automobiles. He further submits that A5 is a sleeping partner of Arun Automobiles. A6 is an active partner who is the son of A11. A2 and A3 are Clerk in the Automobiles, A4 is the Pump Operator of Arun Automobiles. He further submitted that even though A1 is the owner of lorry but it was under the contract of IOC. 5.The learned Counsel appearing for A5 would submit that A5 even though he was a partner of Arun Automobiles received the kerosene from the IOC and distributed among 50 societies on the date also he received the kerosene there is disparity in the account books maintained by Arun Automobiles. So there is no necessity to divert the 1540 litres to Thiyagaraja Automobiles and a false case has been foisted and hence A1 to A4 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. He further submitted that there is no complaint regarding the shortage of quantity of kerosene either from the IOC or from the Society and the petitioners are the partners of Arun Automobiles and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thiyagaraja Automobiles and owner of the lorry apprehending for arrest and hence they prays for anticipatory bail. 6.Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the Arun Automobiles is a dealer of IOC and they have received kerosene and they have distributed to the societies. The case of the prosecution is that while distributing to the Society instead of giving correct quantity they have retained some quantity and saved 1400 litres of kerosene and transferred to Thiyagaraja Automobiles and on such a way they have caused a loss of Rs.23,100/- and the investigation is going on. He further submitted that A1 to A4 were arrested and yet to be released and hence he prays for dismissal of this Application. 7.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, it is seen that the alleged occurrence took place on 15.09.2011 and A1 is a Driver; A2 to A4 are the workers in the Arun Automobiles and admittedly Arun Automobiles is a licence dealer for IOC and they received the kerosene and distributed among 50 Societies and in turn distribute to the cardholders. Now, the case of the prosecution is that on 15.09.2011 at Melur-Sivagangai junction, on information the vehicle was intercepted and they have found 1545 litres of kerosene but considering the location of both the Arun Automobiles and Thiyagaraja Automobiles as well as the place of occurrence the vehicle was intercepted which proves the case of the prosecution some what fishy. 8. Furthermore, A8 to A10 are only the partners; A7 is a Manager of Thiyagaraja Automobiles; A5 and A6 are the partners of Arun Automobiles it is not the case of the prosecution that they received the information that fair price shop not received the allocated quantity of kerosene by the civil supplies. In such circumstances and considering the lacuna on the part of the prosecution, and even though the petitioners were not arrested they neither interfered with the investigation nor absconding from the jurisdiction, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners on condition that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners A5 and A6 shall deposits a sum of Rs.11,500/- each totalling Rs.23,000/-(Rupees Twenty Three Thousand only) to the credit of Crime No.497 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai and on receipt of the same, 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 each of them 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 that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 9. 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 petitions for anticipatory bails stand dismissed. sd/- 21/09/2011 / 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 ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CSCID, MADURAI 1CC to M/S. T.LENIN KUMAR Advocate SR.No.32440: 1CC TO MR. N. MOHIDEEN BASHA, ADVOCATE SR: 32449: 1CC TO MR. A. JAYARAMACHANDRAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 32439: DM::2011:SEPTEMBER:22:: ORDER IN CRL OP(MD)Nos.12559, 12564 and 12603 of 2011 Date :21/09/2011 4p:8c:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/