Arunkumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep By Its Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.01.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA ARUNKUMAR S/o Periyasamy, Road street Rathinathangal Vadugasathu Village Arani Taluk Thiruvannamalai District Petitioner(s) Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by its Inspector of Police, Arani Police Station, Thiruvannamali District (Crime No. 922 Of 2024) Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):

N Vinothkannan N.Desinghu N.Arun Kumar, For Respondent(s): S.Santhosh Government Advocate (criminal Side)

O R D E R

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.922 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 326(a) of BNS Act, 2023 and 21(1) of Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail. 2.Pleading innocence on the part of the petitioner, false implication in 1/6

the case, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a an innocent and that a case of sand theft has been fabricated against them. He also submits that without prejudice to the defence and contention, he is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- as non-refundable deposit to any welfare scheme of the Government or any organization. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court.

3.The case of the prosecution as putforth by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police, opposing for grant of anticipatory bail, is that the quantity of river sand involved is 1 unit. He further submit that, petitioner has two similar previous cases. 4.In respect of grant or refusal of anticipatory bail to the persons indulging in illegal sand mining, smuggling and theft of sand and minerals, the Apex Court in S.Mohamed Shahul Hameed Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6029 of 2020 dated 11.12.2020), while expressing disagreement with the sweep observation made by this Court on the 2/6

aspect of continuous misuse of discretionary power by the offenders and the enforcers as well in an organised manner, has clarified that in consideration of anticipatory bail, the role assigned to a person would have to be considered.

5. Considering the voluntary submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the District Legal Services Authority, Tiruvannamalai without prejudice to the right of defence before the Trial Court and making it clear that it would not amount to admission of guilt. 6.Further, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions and accordingly, he is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Arni, Tiruvannamalai on condition that the petitioner shall 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 3/6

who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate, on further condition that:

[a] if the petitioner fail to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks, thereafter every Saturday at 10.30 am until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

28.01.2025 Sma To

1. Inspector of Police, 4/6

Arani Police Station, Thiruvannamali District

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J.

Sma 28.01.2025 6/6