Karuppaiah, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Ninth day of January Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.305 of 2018 KARUPPAIAH, ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUCHULI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.306 OF 2017) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.A.BALAJI Advocate For Respondent : M/S.S.BHARATHI Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 379 IPC and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 in Crime No.306 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner transported 1-1/2 unit of sand in the tipper lorry without obtaining any valid permission from the appropriate authority. Hence, the present case is registered against the petitioner. 3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the driver of the tipper lorry and he did not involve in the alleged offence and pleads for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioner along with other accused transported 1-1/2 unit of sand in the tipper lorry and no previous case is pending against the petitioner. She further submitted that the investigation is still pending.

5.The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on

either side are considered. This case has been registered against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 379 IPC and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. As of now, the property which were used for the commission of offence, was recovered. Admittedly, the petitioner is not having any previous case and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for completing the investigation.

6.Taking note of all the abovesaid aspects into consideration and having regard to the nature of offence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions. 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, Aruppukottai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m.

(v) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner shall stand automatically cancelled and 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 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] sd/- 09/01/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

ps/cp TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ARUPPUKOTTAI 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUCHULI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.A.BALAJI Advocate SR.No.351 GJM/CM/VR/SAR-4-11.1.18-3P-6C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.305 of 2018 Date :09/01/2018