Allowed

Ravanan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Sept 2014CRL OP(MD)/16762/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to five accused persons apprehending arrest in a criminal case involving encroachment and illegal quarrying. The court imposed conditions including daily police reporting and execution of bail bonds before the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail upon arrest or appearance before the Magistrate by executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties and appearing before the police daily.

Ravanan Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Seventeenth day of September Two Thousand Fourteen PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.16762 of 2014

1 RAVANAN

2 KANNAN

3 SELVAM

4 RAJAMANI

5 ANAND ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN

¶11

¶12

STATE.REP.BY

¶13

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE OTHAKADAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DT,

¶14

CRIME NO.388/2013 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

For Petitioner : M/S.VEERA KATHIRAVAN Advocate

¶16

For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶17

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 447, 379, 120(B), 406, 420, 434, 304(ii) r/w 511 of IPC r/w section 3(1) & 4(1) of T.N.P.P.D.L. Act and section 3(a) and 4(a) of Explosives Substances Act and 4(A), 4(1)(A) and 21 of Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1955, in Crime No.388 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

¶19

2.The case of the prosecution is that A1 encroached upon the property in Survey No.154/1 and doing the quarrying business and illegally quarrying 2,03,593.58 cubic meters with the help of the other accused and thereby, caused loss to the Government.

¶20

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners are only employees of A1 and they have nothing to do with the alleged occurrence and A1 was granted anticipatory bail by this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.13359 of 2013, dated 30.08.2013.

¶21

¶22

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent submitted that with the help of the other accused, A1 encroached upon the Government Poromboke land and illegally quarried granites and thereby caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.407.19 crores and investigation is in the crucial stage.

¶23

5.Considering the fact that the petitioners are employees of the 1^st accused and also considering the fact that A1 was granted anticipatory bail by this court, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions.

¶24

6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur and on each of them 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 petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 06.00 p.m. for a period of one week and thereafter as and when required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶25

7.The petitioners 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/-

17/09/2014

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO

¶30

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MELUR.

¶31

2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.

¶32

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶33

OTHAKADAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶34

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶35

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.

¶36

+1. CC to M/S.VEERA KATHIRAVAN Advocate SR.No.52481

¶37

ORDER IN

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ CRL OP(MD) No.16762 of 2014 Date :17/09/2014 PA/24.09.2014/2P/6C

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Ravanan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravanan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thangamani Vs the Inspector of Police

Manikandan Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Manikandan Vs the Inspector of Police

Perumal Vs the Inspector of Police

Arumugam Vs the Inspector of Police

Bakiaraj Vs the Inspector of Police