Dismissed¶28

Velmurugan v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

Anticipatory Bail – Sec.482 BNSS

Madras HC8 Aug 2025/13310/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge order of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (B.Pugalandhi, J., 08.08.2025) dismissing an anticipatory bail petition under Sec.482 BNSS in CRL OP(MD)No.13310 of 2025 by Velmurugan concerning Cr.No.149 of 2025 (PDS rice seizure case, 5,200 kgs); bail refused solely on account of the petitioner's antecedents (two previous similar cases), with no discussion of merits or precedent.

What did the court decide?

Considering the antecedents of the petitioner, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed the criminal original petition. ¶28

Velmurugan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CRL OP(MD)No.13310 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Date : 08.08.2025

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRL OP(MD)No.13310 of 2025

¶7

Velmurugan ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Inspector of Police, CSCID Police Station, Uthamapalayam, Theni District. (Crime No.149 of 2025) ... Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Arunkumar

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash, Government Advocate(Crl.side)

¶12

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 BNSS

¶13

PRAYER :-

¶14

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.149 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/3

¶17

CRL OP(MD)No.13310 of 2025

¶18

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶19

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (RDCS) Order 1982, Sections 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 and Sections 132, 121(1) BNS in Cr.No.149 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶20

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused were found in illegal possession of 5,200 kgs of PDS rice, which was meant for general public.

¶21

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Further, he submits that the petitioner was implicated only on the basis of the confession statement and there is no recovery from the petitioner.

¶22

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) for the respondent submits that the petitioner is having two previous cases, which are similar in nature.

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

2/3

¶25

5.Considering

¶26

CRL OP(MD)No.13310 of 2025

¶27

5.Considering the antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to