Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/1723/2017partly allowed

Jagadeesan, v. State, Rep By

2017-02-17Honourable Mr Justice A.M. Basheer Ahamed2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Seventeenth day of February Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.M.BASHEER AHAMED CRL OP(MD) No.1723 of 2017 1 JAGADEESAN, 2 SARAVANAKUMAR @ EYAN, ... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED 1 & 5 Vs STATE, REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, APPANAICKENPATTI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DIST.

(CRIME NO.17 OF 2017) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S D.RAMESHKUMAR Advocate For Respondent :MR.P.KANDASAMY, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 5, in Crime No.17/2017 on the file of the respondent police, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 379 IPC, 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) for the respondent/State. 3.The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) on instructions submitted that totally there are five accused in this case and the petitioners herein are arrayed as A-1 and A-5 and the first accused was arrested and he is in judicial custody. The first accused is the owner of the tractor cum trailor which was used to transport 1⁄2 unit of sand illegally worth about Rs.500/-. The second and fifth accused are labourers in this case and the second petitioner has no previous case in similar type of offences.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is withdrawing the application in respect of the first petitioner/A4 since he was arrested and he is in custody as stated by the prosecution. He would further submit that the second petitioner has never committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police and he is implicated for statistical purpose and the present complaint has been falsely lodged against the second petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Since the first petitioner/A1 was arrested and he is custody, this petition is dismissed as against the first petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly, the second petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sattur, and on executing 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the second petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 until further orders. The second petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

6.The second petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

sd/- 17/02/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, SATTUR.

2.DO-THROUGH CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRUDHUNAGAR AT SRIVILIPUTTUR.

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, APPANAICKENPATTI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DIST.

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

+1. CC to M/S D.RAMESHKUMAR Advocate SR.No.9147

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.1723 of 2017 CM Date :17/02/2017 MS/PM.PN/20.2.2017/2P.6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/