Ranjit Yadav v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR 1.Ranjit Yadav 2.Munikrishna 3.Shivashankar Reddy 4.Rameshbabu .. Petitioners Vs.
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Mathigiri Police Station, Krishnagiri District.
(Crime.No.186 of 2025) .. Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection Crime No.186 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Sakkarapanti For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Page No.1 of 7
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 303 (2) BNS r/w 21(1), 21(4) of MM Act, 1957 in Crime No.186 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners had committed theft and illegal transportation of black stones. Hence, the case.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners 1 and 2 are the drivers of the vehicle, and petitioners 3 and 4 are the owners of the vehicle. According to the petitioners, black stones were taken from the patta land for initial transport and not for any trade. He further submits that the petitioners are innocent and the case has been falsely foisted against them by the respondent for statistical purposes. The petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Page No.2 of 7
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners submits that one Mathigiri had lodged a complaint alleging that 4 lorries carrying black stones and black chips, totalling around 10 units, were transported in the four vehicles, and the vehicles were seized. From the vehicles, it is seen that the black stones were found, and the petitioner has been illegally transporting the black stones to the States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh without having valid permission.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in this case, two other accused were granted Anticipatory Bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.15175 of 2025 dated 16.05.2025.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.
Page No.3 of 7
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
8. Accordingly, petitioners 1 and 2 are directed to make a nonrefundable deposit of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand Only] each and petitioners 3 and 4 are directed to make a non-refundable deposit of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand Only] each directly to the credit of "Advocate Bar Association, Krishnagiri District", without prejudice to their rights and contentions before the trial Court, on such deposit and production of proof, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each, 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 said Magistrate, on further condition that:
Page No.4 of 7
[a] if the petitioners fail to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled;
[b] The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the Application for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;
[c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police for the period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;
[d] the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the defacto complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
[e] the petitioners shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police office as and when required; [f] the petitioners to give an undertaking that if required for being identified by witnesses during investigation or for Police custody beyond the first fifteen days, he shall comply to the directions as may be given by the Court in this regard; [g] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
Page No.5 of 7
[h] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners 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];
[i] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
02.06.2025 cda To 1.The Inspector of Police, Mathigiri Police Station, Krishnagiri District.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Hosur.
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
Page No.6 of 7
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cda 02.06.2025 Page No.7 of 7