Velmurugan v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 08/04/2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL Velmurugan ... Petitioner/Accused Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Abiramam Police Station, Ramnad District.

Crime No.41 of 2025.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr. G.Naveen Kumar Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.S.S. Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.41 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. 1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 11.03.2025 under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying to grant an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner / Accused apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondentpolice for the offences punishable under Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No.41 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.03.2025 at about 5.00 pm, when the defacto complainant was on vehicle check up, they found that the petitioner herein was illegally transporting M-Sand without valid permit by using a Lorry bearing Regn.No.TN 74 BB 5467. Hence, the case.

4. Mr.G.Naveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is an innocent person, and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution, and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He however submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this 2/6

Court. He therefore prays for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

5. Mr.S.S.Manoj, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent-police, submits that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. He further submits that the investigation of the case is still pending and, thereafter, at this stage of investigation, if pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioner, he may cause threat to the witnesses and commit the similar offence. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition.

6. Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records.

7. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram filed a report and the said report is accepted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that already the respondent - Police seized the vehicle and Minerals, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitoner is not necessary in this case. The petitioner has permanent residence and deep roots in the society and therefore, there is less possibility for absconding. Considering the same and also considering the nature of offence allegedly committed by the petitioner and with a view to give an 3/6

opportunity to reform himself, this Court is inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions. (i) The petitioner shall be released on pre-arrest bail in the event of his arrest or in the event of his surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi within a period of 15 days from date on which the order copy is made ready, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) along with two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi. (ii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the Application for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi, shall obtain a copy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity. (iii) The petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent - police as and when required for interrogation.

(iv) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

(v) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4/6

(vi) The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

(vii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the defacto complainant and tamper with the evidence. (viii) The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and mobile number to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi.

(ix) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi, is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions are imposed by him as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283].

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed subject to the conditions stated supra.

sd/- 08/04/2025 / TRUE COPY / /04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I/II/III/IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

5/6

TRP TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KAMUTHI, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

2. DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ABIRAMAM POLICE STATION, RAMNAD DISTRIC T.

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

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.4682 of 2025 Date :08/04/2025 PR/30.04 .2025 6P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6