Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/9520/2020dismissed

Panneer Selvam v. The Inspector Of Police

2020-09-09Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan2 pages

CRL OP(MD). No.9520 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 09/09/2020 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.BHARATHIDASAN CRL OP(MD). No.9520 of 2020

1. Panneer Selvam ... Petitioner/1st Accused

2. Madasamy ... Petitioner/2nd Accused Vs State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Velathikulam Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

Crime No.232 of 2020 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners: Mr.M.Saravanan, Advocate for Mathuram Law Associate, For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.232 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 and A3, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under section 379 of I.P.C., and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957, in Crime No.232 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners said to have illegally transported eight units of river sand by using lorry. Hence, a complaint has been registered. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

CRL OP(MD). No.9520 of 2020 3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that there are three previous cases pending against the first petitioner of similar in nature. He further submitted that some other accused have already been arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the quantity of sand and the first petitioner is having bad antecedents of similar in nature and the first petitioner is a habitual offender, hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

sd/- 09/09/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELATHIKULAM POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9520 of 2020 Date :09/09/2020 MS/VR/SAR-1/11.09.2020/2P.3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2