1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the First day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13536 of 2011 V.ANANTHAPPAN ... PETITIONER/1st ACCUSED Vs STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUNAGAR POLICE STATION, CRIME NO.398 OF 2011. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. D.MALAICHAMY Advocate For Respondent : MR. K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is accused No.1 in Cr.NO.398 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offence punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act. Apprehending arrest, at the hands of the respondent police, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 2.According to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner purchased 642 bags of Urea through Government supply stealthily by using the subsidy and thereby converted the same in a different form and sold it to farmers as Granular Nutrient Coated Nitrogenous Fertilizer. This, according to the case of the prosecution amounts offence. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been authorised by the Government to sell the said material to the farmers and he has got patent for the same also. 4.But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that as per the Patent, he has to manufacture his own brand fertilizer. But in stead of doing that, he has purchased Urea from the Government supply, which is meant for poor farmers. 5.I have considered the above submissions. 6.In my considered opinion, the petitioner has stealthily purchased 642 bags of urea, which is meant for sale to farmers, strictly, by the other accused on subsidised price. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 7.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that out of bonafide mistake, he has purchased and sold, as per the patent right given to him, he has indulged in such activities. He would further submit that to show his bonafide, the petitioner is prepared to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- before the lower Court. 8.Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and the submission made by the petitioner that he is prepared to show his bonafide, which represents the cost of the urea, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, but with stringent conditions: 9.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail, with the following conditions: i)The petitioner in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, should 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned; ii)The petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) before the lower court; and iii)The petitioner shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks. iv)The petitioner shall comply with the condition under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. sd/- 01/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.VI, MADURAI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUNAGAR POLICE STATION, MADURAI 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. D.MALAICHAMY Advocate SR.No.37439 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13536 of 2011 Date :01/11/2011 TR :02.11.2011: 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/