Kannan v. State Rep By

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 379 of IPC, in Crime No.198 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are alleged to have transported 1/4 unit of river sand illegally by using Bullock cart. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and the same was for their personal use and that a case of sand theft has been fabricated against them. He would further submit that without prejudice to their contentions, each of the petitioners are prepared to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards any charitable organization or association. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the quantity of river sand involved is 1/4 unit. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5.This Court in a batch of applications in Crl.O.P.No.13334 of 2020 dated 03.09.

2020 had expressed the opinion that the offenders despite several orders passed by various Benches of this Court regarding illegal sand mining and knowing fully well about the evil consequences affecting the environment and society at large and the implications thereon are indulging in the offences of illegal quarrying/mining, theft and smuggling of sand and minerals and that finding that the case comes under the category of cases of large magnitude affecting and impacting livelihood of a very large number of people knowingly and unknowingly, had dismissed anticipatory bail applications. Subsequently, the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.13334 of 2020 and Batch etc. dated 03.09.

2020 was clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not agreed with the broad sweep of the observation made by this Court in Paragraph 27 of the order in Crl.O.P.No.13334 of 2020 and connected matters decided on 03.09.2020 and had directed that the role assigned to the person would have to be considered on case to case basis.

6.It is the case of the petitioners that the quantity is minimum intended for their personal use, however in order to curb the illegal sand mining activities and taking into consideration the voluntary submission made by the petitioners offering to deposit a considerable amount to any charitable organization or association, this Court is of the opinion that the each of the petitioners may be directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to credit of the concerned District Mineral Foundation Trust, without prejudice to their rights and contentions before the trial Court. 7.Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsel, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions; 8.

Accordingly, each of the petitioners shall make a non refundable deposit of Rs.

copy made ready, before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ariyalur, on condition that each of the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties 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 petitioners 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioners 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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.

30.11.2022 sp

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

sp 30.11.2022