Venkatesan v. State Rep By

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 379 and 430 of IPC r/w 21(5) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1957 in Crime No.106 of 2023 on the file of the respondent/police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.It is the case of the prosecution that on 04.04.2023 around 03.00 a.m. the defacto complainant along with his team closely monitoring the sand smuggling near the river belt within the Kalasapakkam Police limit. Based on the confidential information police team inspected the Four Wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-25-C-9556. On seeing the police officials the driver of the four wheeler fled from the place and absconded. Hence the complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent police lodged the complaint with false allegations, the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant. He is only the driver of the above said vehicle and he has not committed the above said offence. He is a law abiding citizen and has permanent residence and he will 1/6

neither abscond nor evade the due process of law and cooperate with the investigation. He is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, the learned counsel prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioner is an habitual offender and hence he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record. 6.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.Accordingly, the petitioner is directed 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 Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two 2/6

sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent/police or the police officer, who intends to arrest the petitioner, 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 Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; (b) the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) each to the credit of Registered Advocate Clerks Association, Tiruvannamalai District, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall produce the said receipt before the Court below;

(c) the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required;

(d) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (e) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(f) 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 3/6

petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/trial Judge himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and; (g) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

17.04.2024 ah 4/6

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

ah Crl.OP.No.9327 of 2024 5/6

17.04.2024 6/6