Govindaraj v. The State Rep By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-12-2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL OP NO. 31115 of 2024 GOVINDARAJ S/o.Kannan Sholavaram Colony, Kalasapakkkam, Kalasapakkam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.
Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep by its The Inspector of Police, Kalasapakkam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
Cr.No.302/2024.
Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr.E.Sathiyaraj Elangovan For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Santhosh Govt.Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) and 326 of BNS and Section 21(5) of MMDR Act, 1957 in Crime No.302 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that 25kg of sane had been illegally transported by two wheeler.
1/5
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that he has no previous case against him. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by submitting that the quantity of river sand has been involved in this case.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
6. In respect of grant or refusal of anticipatory bail to the persons indulging in illegal sand mining, smuggling and theft of sand and minerals, the Apex Court in S.Mohamed Shahul Hameed Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6029 of 2020 dated 11.12.2020), while expressing disagreement with the sweep observation made by this Court on the aspect of continuous misuse of discretionary 2/5
power by the offenders and the enforcers as well in an organised manner, has clarified that in consideration of anticipatory bail, the role assigned to a person would have to be considered.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the sand involved is small quantity and that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:- 8 (i) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in th 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 Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalasapakkam, Tiruvannamalai District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 conditions that: [a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders.
3/5
[b] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[d] 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];
[e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
13.12.2024 kkd 4/5
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
kkd 13.12.2024 5/5