Arun v. The State Rep.By
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
The petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 379 & 430 of IPC r/w Section 21(1) of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 in Crime No.338 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on the occurrence day, the petitioner was found in illegal transportation of 1⁄4 unit of morambu sand. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not involved in any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the quantity of sand involved is 1⁄4 unit. Further, the petitioner has no previous cases. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5.In view of the rehabilitation undertaken under the Tamil Nadu District Mineral Foundation Rules, 2017, and in order to curb the illegal sand mining activities, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as non refundable deposit to the credit of the concerned District Mineral Foundation Trust, without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court.
6.Merely, because the petitioner has deposited the said amount, it would not amount to admission of his guilt. Therefore, it is open to the trial Court to deal with the case independently. 7.Taking note of the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
8. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as non refundable deposit to
the credit of the concerned District Mineral Foundation Trust and on such deposit 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 No.1, 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 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 deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as non refundable deposit to the credit of the concerned District Mineral Foundation Trust.
[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.
[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 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].
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
[h] It is made clear that if the petitioner involves in similar type of offence in future, the anticipatory bail granted to him shall stand cancelled automatically 18.05.2023 lok
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
lok 18.05.2023