Madan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Fifth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI 1 MADAN 2 MUTHU KUMAR 3 RAMASAMY ... Petitioners Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUMAYAM POLICE STATION, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO.35/2024.) ... Respondent / Complainant For Petitioners :
M/s.A.Shajahan, Advocate For Respondent :
Mr.S.Manikandan, Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. PRAYER : FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.35/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 379 of IPC r/w 21 (1) and 21(2) of Mines and 1/6
Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 in Cr.No.35 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners were involved in illegal transportation of 5 1⁄2 unit of rough stone. Hence, the case. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. However, on instructions, he further submitted that the petitioners, without prejudice to their rights, are ready to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the Mineral Foundation Trust and hence, he prays for grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail stating that the petitioners were involved in illegal transportation of 5 1⁄2 unit of rough stone and the third petitioner is having two previous cases. He fairly conceded that the petitioners 1 and 2 are having no previous case.
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 petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners shall be directed to make a non refundable deposit of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand 2/6
only) each to the credit of the concerned District Mineral Foundation Trust, without prejudice to their rights and contentions. The amount so deposited shall be utilised by the Trust for rehabilitation works.
6.It is made clear that the deposit of the amount by the petitioners 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 amount of sand involved in this case, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
8.Accordingly, 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumayam, on condition that the petitioners 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 the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: (a)if the petitioners failed to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this 3/6
order shall stand automatically cancelled;
(b)As per the undertaking given by the petitioners, the petitioners shall make a non refundable deposit of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each through demand draft 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 the learned Judicial Magistrate, after perusing the challan/ receipt, shall accept the sureties furnished by the petitioners;
(c)the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; (d)the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;
(e)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(f)the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; (g)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in 4/6
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]; and;
(h)if the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
sd/- 25/03/2024 / TRUE COPY / /04/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.I /II /III /IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
SJI To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam.
2.Do through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai District.
3.TheInspector of Police, Thirumayam Police Station, Pudukottai District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
Copy to:
The Chairman / District Collector, District Mineral Foundation Trust, Pudukkottai District.
+1 CC to M/s.A.SHAJAHAN, Advocate ( SR-3638[I] dated 25/03/2024 )
ORDER
IN Date :25/03/2024 ED/ JGB /SAR- (01/04/2024) 6P / 7C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6