Manikandan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 05/01/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

1. Manikandan,

2. Vellaiyammal, ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 Vs State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Illupur Police Station, Pudukottai District.

Crime No.351 of 2022.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : M/s.Mahendrarajan B,Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.M.Veeranthiran, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.351 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 and A2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 379 IPC r/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 in Crime No.351 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners have illegally transported 1⁄2 unit of lake sand using tipper lorry. Hence, the complaint.

1/4

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would also submit that without prejudice to their contention, the petitioners are prepared to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- to any Welfare Scheme of the Government. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioners said to have illegally transported 1⁄2 unit of lake sand using tipper lorry. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. However, he fairly concedes that no previous case pending as against the petitioners. 5.Heard. Perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.

6.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 petitioners may be directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the concerned District Mineral Foundation Trust without prejudice to their rights and contentions before the trial Court.

7.Merely, because the petitioners had 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. 8.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

9. Accordingly, the petitioners shall make a non refundable deposit of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) by way of Demand Draft/RTGS/NEFT to the credit of the District Mineral Foundation Trust concerned, 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 on which the order copy made ready, before the learned District Judicial Magistrate, Iluppur, Pudukottai District, 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 learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

2/4

[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 everyday 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.

sd/- 05/01/2023 / TRUE COPY / /01/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

AAV TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ILUPPUR, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

2 DO THROUGH:

THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ILLUPUR POLICE STATION, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT.

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

3/4

COPY TO THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DISTRICT MINERAL FOUNDATION TRUST, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.100 of 2023 Date :05/01/2023 PKP/MMS/SAR-3/19.01.2023/4P/6C 4/4