Suresh v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.11.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Suresh ... Petitioner Vs The Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station, Trichy District (Crime No.305 of 2022).

... Respondent Prayer: This Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to call for records and set aside the condition No.2 imposed on the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.2054 of 2022, dated 30.04.2022, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anandakumar For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Madhavan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/5

O R D E R

Challenging the condition No.2 imposed on the revision petitioner in the order, dated 30.04.2022, in Crl.M.P.No.2054 of 2022, passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

2.The respondent Police has registered a case in Crime No.305 of 2022, for the offence under Section 379 IPC and 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 against two vehicles viz., TN-45BP-3631 and TN 45 BS 3134. The revision petitioner claims to be the owner of a vehicle, ie., TATA Benz Tipper Lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-45BP-3631. Subsequently, the petitioner has approached the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, by way of filing a petition in Crl.M.P.No.2054 of 2022, for release of the vehicle and the same was allowed, by order dated 30.04.2022, thereby, imposing one of the condition to the effect that the petitioner is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties each for a likesum. Challenging the said condition imposed by the trial Court, the petitioner is before this Court, with this criminal revision. 2/5

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4.The only grievance of the petitioner is that the conditions imposed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli are onerous. He is not in a position to arrange two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.

5.It is submitted on the side of the respondent that in this case two vehicles were involved and the owners of both vehicles have filed separate petitions under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The trial Court has imposed the same conditions in both the petitions and the revision petitioner has not complied with the said condition, whereas, the owner of other vehicle has complied with the condition. The alleged vehicle said to be 5 years old. 6.In view of that, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Accordingly, the condition imposed in No.2 in Crl.M.P.No.2054 of 2022, dated 30.04.2022, is modified, to the effect that the petitioner is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) with one surety for a likesum, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 3/5

No.VI, Tiruchirappalli. In respect of other conditions, the order of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, shall remain unaltered. 24.11.2022 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No PNM To

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli 2.The Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station, Trichy District (Crime No.305 of 2022).

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

G.ILANGOVAN , J.

PNM ORDER IN 24.11.2022 5/5