Allowed

Udhayakumar v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Aug 2018CRL OP(MD)/14783/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, apprehending arrest for illegal sand transportation. The court directed a non-refundable deposit of Rs. 5,000 to the District Mineral Foundation Trust as a condition for release, along with bonds and sureties, and conditions requiring appearance for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail upon depositing Rs. 5,000 non-refundably to the District Mineral Foundation Trust and executing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

Udhayakumar Vs the Inspector of Police — Mining and Natural Resources | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

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

¶2

Thursday, the Twenty Third day of August Two Thousand Eighteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.14783 of 2018

¶6

UDHAYAKUMAR

¶7

... PETITIONER /1^st ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

STATE REP.BY

¶10

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAPERAMBUR POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR. IN CRIME NO.58 OF 2018 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶11

For Petitioner : MR.K.JEGAN, Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.V.NEELAKANDAN, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 379 I.P.C and Sec.21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act in Crime No.58 of 2018, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 20.05.2018, the petitioner has transported one unit of sand illegally without valid permission. Hence, a case has been registered.

¶17

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶18

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the quantity of sand involved is one unit and the same was recovered. He further submitted that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner.

¶19

In view of the rehabilitation undertaken under the Tamil Nadu District Mineral Foundation Rules, 2017, and in order to curb the illegal sand mining activities, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/(Rupees Five thousand only) as non refundable deposit to the credit of the concerned District Mineral Foundation Trust, without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court.

¶20

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

¶21

6.Merely, because the petitioner has deposited the said amount, it would not amount to admission of his guilt. Therefore, it is open to the trial Court to deal with the case independently.

¶22

7.Taking note of the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶23

Accordingly, a) the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as non refundable deposit to the credit of the concerned District Mineral Foundation Trust

¶24

b) On such deposit the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur and on his 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

¶25

c) On further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶26

d) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed.

sd/-

23/08/2018

/ TRUE COPY /

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶31

¶32

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, THANJAVUR. 2. DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THANJAVUR DISTRICT AT KUMBAKONAM.

¶33

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶34

KALLAPERAMBUR POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶35

COPY TO:

¶36

THE OFFICER INCHARGE,

¶37

DISTRICT MINERAL FOUNDATION TRUST, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

¶38

+1. CC to MR.K.JEGAN Advocate SR.No.16123

¶39

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

¶40

CRL OP(MD) No.14783 of 2018

¶41

MS/JC/SAR-2/27.08.2018/2P.7C

Udhayakumar v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udhayakumar 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

A. Edwin Altrin Vs the Superintendent of Police

C. Mohan Vs the Inspector of Police

Ramar, Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs the Inspector of Police

C.a.Kavitha Vs the Superintendent of Police

Prasanna, Vs the Inspector of Police