BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Tenth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.14534 of 2011 1. U. RAMACHANDRAN 2. C. RAJENDRAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3 & 4 Vs THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE CSCID, MADURAI DISTRICT, CRIME NO.564/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.PUGALENDHI Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police in Crime No.564 of 2011 for offences under Sections 6(4) of TNPC (RDCS) of 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act 1955, they are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 2. There are two petitioners in this case. So far as the first petitioner is concerned, in view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this petition is dismissed as not pressed. 3. So far as the second petitioner is concerned it is stated by the prosecution that he is the owner of the Autorickshaw in question The said vehicle was found carrying four hundred bags of PDS rice. Two accused who were in the auto were arrested and on their confession, these two petitioners have been roped in. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would deny all the allegations. According to him the vehicle was in the custody of the driver and he had no knowledge that the vehicle has been used for any such illegal purpose. 5. I have considered the above submission. 6. As of now there is no material to show that the second petitioner had any knowledge that the vehicle, which was in the custody of the driver was being used for any illegal purpose. 7. Having regard to the nature of the offence said to have been committed by the petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner alone, but with conditions. 8. Accordingly, the second petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai, on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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 second petitioner shall report before the respondent police on everyday at 10.30 am., for a period of four weeks. The second petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. 9. This petition is dismissed as not pressed in respect of the first petitioner. sd/- 10/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, SIVAGANGAI 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SIVAGANGAI 3. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE CSCID, MADURAI DISTRICT, 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. S.PUGALENDHI Advocate SR.No.38874 GH : 12.11.2011 : 2P/6C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14534 of 2011 Date :10/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/