P. Ranjithkumar v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fifth day of December Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP(MD) No.21378 of 2018 P. RANJITHKUMAR ... PETITIONER / RANK NOT KNOWN Vs STATE REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUKATTUPALLI POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

(IN CR NO. 232 OF 2018) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : MR.R.SURESH KUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC r/w Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, registered in Crime No.232 of 2018, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused had illegally transported two units of sand. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case and that therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State submitted that the petitioner was already granted anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17140 of 2018, dated 26.09.2018 and also filed modification petition and the same was dismissed and the time for execution of sureties was extended for a period of 15 days. But he has not comply with the conditions imposed by this Court. He further submitted that if the person is caught with illegal sand in

the mining area, he has to be directed to deposit the conditional amount to the credit of Crime number. However, in view of formation of District Mineral Foundation Trust in each district, the amount may be deposited to the credit of the said Trust for rehabilitation in the illegal sand mining affected areas.

5.In view of the rehabilitation undertaken by the State Government under the Tamil Nadu District Mineral Foundation Rules, 2017, and in order to curb the illegal sand mining activities and also considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is directed to make a non refundable deposit of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the credit of the concerned District Mineral Foundation Trust, without prejudice to his rights and contentions.

6. It is made clear that the deposit of the amount by the petitioner to the Trust would not amount to admission of guilt. The trial Court shall deal with the case independently on merits without reference to the amount deposited at the stage of anticipatory bail. 7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with the condition imposed earlier.

8. Accordingly, 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur, 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 to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: (i) if the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days, this order shall stand automatically cancelled.

(ii) the petitioner shall make a non refundable deposit of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the credit of the Chairman/District Collector, District Mineral Foundation Trust of the concerned District, without prejudice to their defence before the trial Court and thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate shall accept the sureties furnished by the petitioner; (iii) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

(iv) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

(v) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

(vi) 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]. (vii) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

sd/- 05/12/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVAIYARU, THANJAVUR.

2.DO THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THANJAVUR DISTRICT AT KUMBAKONAM.

3.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUKATTUPALLI POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

4.THE CHAIRMAN/DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT MINERAL FOUNDATION TRUST, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

5.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to MR.R.SURESH KUMAR Advocate SR.No.22773

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.21378 of 2018 Date :05/12/2018 AE/VR MMS/SAR1/11.12.2018/3P/7C