V.Perumal v. The State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.05.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR V.Perumal
...Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by The Inspector of Police Kalambur Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
(Crime No.233 of 2024)
...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.233 of 2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kalambur Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
For petitioner : Mr.G.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner seeks bail in Crime No.233 of 2024, registered by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 430 1/6
of IPC and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals ( Development & Regulation Act) 1957. The petitioner had been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.05.2024.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is alleged to have transported 1 unit of river sand by using Tractor without valid permission. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that there is no previous case against this petitioner. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent stated that the petitioner has illegally transported 1 unit of river sand in a Tractor. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. In order to curb illegal sand mining activities, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- 2/6
(Rupees Ten Thousand only) as non refundable deposit to the credit of the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvannamalai District, without prejudice to their rights and contentions before the trial Court.
6. Merely, because the petitioner deposit the said amount, it would not amount to admission of their guilt. Therefore, it is open to the trial Court to deal with the case independently.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the learned counsels, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:
8. Accordingly, the petitioner shall make a non-refundable deposit of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the credit of the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvannamalai District, and on such deposit and production of proof, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing 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 Judicial Magistrate, Arni, Tiruvannamalai District and on further conditions 3/6
that :- [a] 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 once in a week on every Monday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.
[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness 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 229A IPC.
29.05.2024 4/6
rpl To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Arni, Tiruvannamalai District.
2. The Sub Jail, Polur.
3.The Inspector of Police Kalambur Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. S.SOUNTHAR ., J.
rpl 5/6
29.05.2024 6/6