Dismissed¶¶29

Shahul ameed v. State represented by The Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Nov 2025CRL OP/31425/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Crl.O.P.No.31425 of 2025, decided 18.11.2025 by Justice K. Rajasekar. Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS refused in Crime No.148 of 2025 (Inspector of Police, CSCID, Cuddalore Police Station) for offences under Sections 6(4) Scheduled Commodities (RDCS) order and 7(1)(a)(ii) Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Repeat application after dismissal of Crl.O.P.No.29699 of 2025 on 31.10.2025; Court held no change in circumstances; petition dismissed. Petitioner: Shahul Ameed; Counsel: Mounish LP (petitioner), A. Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) (respondent).

What did the court decide?

There is no change in circumstances in the present petition compared to the earlier dismissed anticipatory bail application, and the Court is therefore not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. ¶¶24-25

Shahul ameed Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.31425 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.11.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.31425 of 2025

¶7

Shahul Ameed ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

State Rep by, The Inspector of Police, CSCID, Cuddalore Police Station, Cuddalore District. (Crime No.148 of 2025) ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.148 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Mounish LP For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶12

¶13

1/4

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.31425 of 2025

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 6(4) Scheduled Commodities (RDCS) order, 7(1)(a)(ii), Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in Crime No.148 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶18

The earlier anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was dismissed

¶19

by this Court, vide order dated 31.10.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.29699 of 2025.

¶20

The earlier anticipatory bail application in Crl.O.P.No.29699 of 2025

¶21

dated 31.10.2025 was dismissed on the following grounds:

¶22

“6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel on

¶23

either side, the co-accused already released on bail and one previous case is pending against the petitioner, quantity seized is also huge, the petitioner is having bad antecedents, and this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. ”

¶24