THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8628 of 2009 ORDER: This petition, under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.311 of 2009 on the file of Tadepalli Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act and Clause 17 of the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. Anticipatory bail is a discretionary remedy. When it appears that a respectable person is falsely implicated in a criminal case, then considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court may exercise discretionary powers to see that an innocent person is not put to unnecessary harassment and his prestige is not lowered in the society. The same does not apply to a person who is indulging in malpractices or criminal activities continuously. The petitioner No.1/Accused No.1, earlier, approached this Court by filing Criminal Petition No.1895 of 2009, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.43 of 2009 of Tadepalli Police Station, Guntur District, and this Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, granted him anticipatory bail on 06.04.2009. When once a person obtained bail from the Court, it is expected that he would act as a law abiding citizen, attend the Court regularly, not tamper the prosecution evidence and not repeat such acts in future, but unfortunately, the allegations against the petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 show that he has again indulged in similar criminal activities. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.10.2009 at about 10.30 A.M., when the D.S.P., Vigilance and Enforcement, along with his staff surprised Srinivasa Rice Mill of petitioner No.1, rice in huge quantity was found, and enquiries revealed that petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 and his clerk i.e., petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 used to collect P.D.S. rice, meant for white card holders, from the dealers, in Vijayawada, transport it through Auto No.16 TX 2416 and deliver the same at the mill. On 13.10.2009, at about 6.30 P.M., the D.S.P., Vigilance & Enforcement, Guntur, intercepted the auto and seized 16 bags of P.D.S. rice in the presence of mediators. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that clause 17 of the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 is applicable only to the fair price shop dealers and it is not applicable to the petitioners’ case. It is also his submission that section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act is a bailable offence and Section 420 I.P.C. is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The technical aspects raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be gone into at the time of deciding the bail application. What is to be seen is whether a prima facie case has been made out or not. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, purchasing of P.D.S. rice and diverting it to black-marketing itself attracts the provision of Section 420 IPC. In view of the above allegations made against the petitioners and also the conduct of petitioner No.1 that even after obtaining bail in similar case, he is indulging in similar offences, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail. The criminal petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ____________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J 29th October, 2009 v v