Devan @ Devendran v. The Sub Inspector Of Police
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 430 of IPC read with Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No.64 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.02.2023, while the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police station along with his police party was on regular patrol duty, they found two persons illegally transporting two bags of river sand, each 50 kgs. in 2 two wheelers bearing Regn.Nos.TN-20-Ah-8233 and TN-03-5871, without any valid permit from the Government and on seeing the police, one of the accused namely Sridhar ran away from the spot and the other accused namely Suriyanarayanan was arrested by the respondent police.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this
case. He would further submit that the petitioner's friends had purchased 50 kgs. of sand for their personal use and while they were transporting the same in two wheelers, the respondent police arrested A1 and based on his confession, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN-20-Ah8233. However, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, the petitioner is prepared to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards any welfare scheme run by the Government and he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner stating that the petitioner along with other accused committed theft of river sand by using two wheelers. However, there is no previous case against the petitioner.
5. This Court in a batch of petitions in Crl.O.P.No.13334 of 2020 dated 03.09.2020 had dismissed the earlier application expressing the opinion that the offenders despite several orders passed by various
Benches of this Court regarding illegal sand mining and knowing fully well about the evil consequences affecting the environment and society at large and the implications thereon are indulging in the offences of illegal quarrying/mining, theft and smuggling of sand and minerals and that finding that the case comes under the category of cases of large magnitude affecting and impacting livelihood of a very large number of people knowingly and unknowingly, had dismissed the earlier applications. Subsequently, the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.13334 of 2020 and etc batch dated 03.09.2020 was clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not agreed with the broad sweep of the observation made by this Court in Paragraph 27 of the order in Crl.O.P.No.13334 of 2020 and the connected matters decided on 03.09.2020 and had directed that the role assigned to the person would have to be considered on case to case basis.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that his friends had transported sand in two wheelers which were purchased for their personal use, however in order to curb the illegal sand mining activities and taking into
consideration the voluntary submission made by the petitioner offering to deposit a considerable amount to any welfare scheme run by the Government, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner may be directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the credit of the concerned District Mineral Foundation Trust, without prejudice to his rights and the contentions before the trial Court.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
8. Accordingly, the petitioner shall make a non-refundable deposit of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) by way of Demand Draft/RTGS/NEFT to the credit of the District Mineral Foundation Trust concerned, without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court, on such deposit and production of proof, the petitioner 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 on which the order copy
made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter, every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., 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 abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
20.04.2023 ksa-2
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
ksa-2 20.04.2023