Venkatesan v. State Rep. By The
K.KUMARESH BABU , J.
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 430 of I.P.C r/w Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals of (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 in Crime No.66 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that during their routine check up, the petitioner was found in illegal transportation of two units of river sand in his vehicle without any valid permit or license from the Government. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and a false case has been foisted against him. However, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, the petitioner is prepared to deposit a substantial amount towards any Welfare Scheme run by the Government as may be directed by this Court.
Therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the petitioner had illegally transported two units of river sand without any valid permit from the Government by using Tipper Lorry Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, he fairly conceded that the petitioner has no previous case.
5. 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.20,000/- (Rupees twenty Thousand only) to the credit of the concerned District Mineral Foundation Trust, without prejudice to his rights and the contentions before the trial Court.
6. Having regard to the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner
with certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner shall make a non-refundable deposit of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty 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, Gudiyatham, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.
identity.
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.
[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.
8. It is made clear that if the petitioner involves in similar type of offence in future, the anticipatory bail granted to him shall stands cancelled automatically.
17.05.2023 msr/mrr
K.KUMARESH BABU , J.
msr/mrr 17.05.2023