Dismissed

N.Kannan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC14 Feb 2014CRL OP(MD)/24/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court rejected petitions for anticipatory bail filed by accused persons alleged to be guilty of illegal mining, land grab, and other offenses. The Court held that due to the gravity of the offenses and serious allegations of huge revenue loss, the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail was not warranted.

What did the court decide?

The petitions for anticipatory bail were dismissed, refusing the relief sought by the petitioners.

N.Kannan Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

Friday, the Fourteenth day of February Two Thousand Fourteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) Nos.24, 30, 68 & 81 of 2014

¶6

N.KANNAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED IN CRL OP(MD)NO.24/2014

¶7

HANIF BASHA

¶8

YUSUF BASHA 3. SOUKATH ALI 4. SHANAWAZ

¶9

AZAD ALI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRL.OP(MD)NO.30/14

¶10

P.VELMANI 2. ANUP KUMAR LOHIA ...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.7 & 8 IN CRL.OP(MD)NO.68/14 G.TAMILSELVI ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRL.OP(MD)NO.81/14

¶11

¶12

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VICKARAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶13

CR.NO.141/2013 ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS IN ALL THE CASES

¶14

For Petitioner : M/S.T.SENTHIL KUMAR ADVOCATE IN CRL OP(MD)NO.24/2014 M/S.AJMAL ASSOCIATES IN CRL OP(MD)NO.30/14 M/S.R.S.VIJAYA PRASAD,ADVOCATE IN CRL OP(MD)NO.68/2014 M/S.VEERA KATHIRAVAN, ADVOCATE IN CRL OP(MD)NO.81/2014

¶15

For Respondent : Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶16

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶17

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.24 of 2014 is arrayed as A2, the petitioners 2 and 5 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.30 of 2014 are arrayed as A4 and A5 and in respect the other petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.30 of 2014 the petitioners rank is not known, the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.68 of 2014 are arrayed as A7 and A8 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.81 of 2014 is arrayed as A1 and all of them apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 379, 434, 417, 420, 430, 467 and 468 of I.P.C. and 304(ii) r/w 511 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992, Sections 6(3)(a) and 4(a) of Explosives Substance Act, 1908 and Sections 4(1)(A), 21 and 23 of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulations Act, 1957, in Crime No.141 of 2013, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶19

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

¶20

The complaint was lodged on 20.12.2013 by the Village Administrative Officer of Sakkarappa Nayakkanur Village. A perusal of the F.I.R. in Crime No.141 of 2013, registered by the respondent police would disclose that Survey No.84/1, Sakkarappa Nayakkanur Village is classified as Government Poromboke and measuring 6.76.0 hectares and out of the said 6.76.0 hectares 0.61.0 hectares have been leased out in favour of the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.81 of 2014 viz., Tmt.Tamilselvi for the purpose of quarrying granite in the above said land. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.81 of 2014 Tmt.Tamilselvi along with his Manager and brother's son viz. Kannan, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.24 of 2014, their servants and the owner of K.M.B. Granites viz. K.M.Batcha and its Manager Azad, petitioners 2 and 5 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.30 of 2013 and its servants have quarried granites for about four years and subsequently P.Velumani and his partner R.Anup Kumar Lohia, the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.68 of 2014 had quarried granites in the above said lands. It is the specific case of the prosecution that they have done illegal quarrying to the extent of 55347.08 cubit metres of granite and they also used heavy machineries and explosives to quarry the granite and that apart in the process, huge pit was created and they have not provided any protective wall or fence. According to the respondent, on account of the illegal quarrying, a loss to the tune of Rs.110.69 Crores has been caused to the Government.

¶21

The respective learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this Court had granted interim orders of anticipatory bail in these petitions as early as on 06.01.2014 and the said interim orders have been periodically extended and considering the nature of the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is no longer required. It is further submitted that in pursuant to the interim order dated 27.07.2005, made in W.P.No.23935 of 2005, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.81 of 2014 continues to carry on the quarrying operations and therefore, it cannot be termed as illegal quarrying and with regard to the suspension of operation also W.P.(MD) No.1446 of 2013 has been filed and an interim order dated 08.01.2013, has been obtained in M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013, staying the suspension of the operation and in the light of the above, they pray for regularisation of interim anticipatory bail already granted by this Court.

¶22

Per contra, the learned State Public Prosecutor as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents strongly oppose these applications for anticipatory bail by submitting that the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.81 of 2014 without any authorization has sub-leased the quarries to third parties and they had done illegal quarrying and the ultimate beneficiary was herself and though the period of lease had expired as early as on 27.07.2005, she continued the quarrying operations by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court in W.P.No.23935 of 2005 and steps are being taken to vacate the interim order and would further submit that in the light of serious allegations of illegal quarrying, causing huge revenue loss to the running to Crores of rupees to the Government and with the corresponding gain to the accused, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary.

¶23

This Court considered the rival submission and also perused the typed set of documents filed along with these petitions.

¶24

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

¶25

A perusal of the typed set of documents would disclose that on 28.07.1995, a lease for quarrying and carrying away Minor Minerals was entered between the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.81 of 2013 and the Government and the petitioner was permitted to quarry 1.50 acres in S.F.No.84/1 of Sakkarappanaickanur Village and one of the terms of the lease is that liberty was granted to the lessee and other persons authorized by her to search for work, get carry away and dispose of the extracted minerals and other substances and the period of lease was from 28.07.1995 to 27.07.2005 and as per the condition number 5, the lessee cannot assign, under-let or part with the possession of the demised premises or any part thereof without the written consent of the lessor viz. Government of Tamil Nadu.

¶26

A perusal of the objections filed by the respondent would disclose that it has been sub let in favour of other accused and they have had done quarrying operations in an illegal manner and in that process, a pit has been created and no protective fence has also been put up. It has been further pointed out in the objections that the accused had also trespassed into the Government poromboke land in S.F.No.84/1 admeasuring to an extent of 3,342.38 sq.m.

¶27

Though it is contended that by virtue of the interim order passed in W.P.No.23935 of 2005, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.81 of 2014 is continuing the quarrying operations beyond the lease period, the fact remains that the interim order in W.P.No.23935 of 2005 is only an interim measure and the same may not confer any right on the said petitioner and admittedly as per the lease deed dated 28.07.1995, the period of lease expired on 27.07.2005 and by virtue of the interim order alone she has been quarrying and the materials placed before this Court would show that she has sub-leased it to third parties, who are also arrayed as accused and who are involved in illegal quarrying and thereby caused huge revenue loss running to Crores of rupees with a corresponding gain to the accused.

¶28

It is very surprising to note that according to the F.I.R., the offences were said to have been committed right from 08.06.1995 and all along the Government Department as well as the concerned officials for the reasons best known to them had turned a blind eye and it is not made known as to the action taken against the concerned Government officials, who prima facie colluded and connived with the concerned accused. No doubt, this Court has granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners vide order dated 06.01.2014, and the same has been periodically extended. However, said interim orders/protection will not confer any right to the petitioners to get the said interim order absolute.

¶29

This Court taking into consideration, the gravity of the offence and the serious nature of the allegations, is of the considered view that these cases are not fit cases, wherein the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail have to be exercised in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, all these petitions are dismissed.

sd/-

14/02/2014

/ TRUE COPY /

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶34

¶35

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, USILAMPATTI

¶36

-DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI

¶37

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VICKARAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI DIST,

¶38

THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶39

+1. CC TO M/S.T.SENTHIL KUMAR ADVOCATE SR.NO.9662 +1CC TO M/S.VEERA KATHIRAVAN, ADVOCATE SR.NO.9605 +ONE CC TO M/S.AJMAL ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE, SR.NO.9958

¶40

SR : 17.02.2014 : 4P/8C

¶41

ORDER IN

¶42

CRL OP(MD) Nos.24,30,68 & 81 of 2014

¶43

Date :14/02/2014

¶44

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

N.Kannan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Kannan 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

Saleem Mohamed Vs the Inspector of Police

P.Rangaraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Kannan @ Rajesh Kanna Vs the State Rep.by

Sangaralingam Vs the Inspector of Police

Mani @ Muthaiah Vs the Assistant Commissioner of