Allowed

Chellamuthu v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC24 Oct 2019CRL OP/28359/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused facing charges under Section 379 IPC for alleged illegal sand transport. The primary condition imposed was a non-refundable deposit of Rs. 15,000 to the District Mineral Foundation Trust, along with standard bail conditions including reporting and execution of a bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to deposit of Rs. 15,000 as non-refundable, execution of bond with sureties, and specific reporting conditions.

Chellamuthu Vs the Inspector of Police — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Twenty Fourth day of October Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.28359 of 2019

¶7

1 CHELLAMUTHU [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 JAGANATHAN

¶8

Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY, [ RESPONDENT ]

¶9

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DHARAPURAM POLICE STATION, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT. CRIME NO.558 OF 2019

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.P.KALIMUTHU Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR.T.SHUNMUGARAJESWARAN Govt. Advocate O/O.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under sections 379 of IPC in Crime No.585 of 2019, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is alleged to have transported 1 unit of river sand illegally.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the quantity of river sand involved is 1 unit. He further submitted that the he has no previous case. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

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

¶19

5.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.15,000/(Rupees Fifteen 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

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.

¶21

7.Taking note of the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as non refundable deposit to the credit of the concerned District Mineral Foundation Trust and on such deposit the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, on condition that the petitioner shall execute 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶22

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

¶23

* the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/(Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as non refundable deposit by way of demand draft to the credit of the concerned District Mineral Foundation Trust."

¶24

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one week and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

¶25

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶26

[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶27

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

¶28

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶29

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶30

-sd/-

¶31

24/10/2019

¶32

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. [*]Being mentioned as per order of this Court dated 28/11/2019 in CRL.OP.NO.28359 OF 2019 TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARAPURAM. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUPPUR [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DHARAPURAM POLICE STATION, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT. 5 THE DISTRICT MINERAL FOUNDATION TRUST, TIRUPPUR. +1CC to M/S.P.KALIMUTHU Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO.24714 CRL OP.28359/2019 Date :24/10/2019 MK:30/10/2019 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MK:03/12/2019

Chellamuthu v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chellamuthu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Easwari Vs Kirubananthan

Rajamanickam Vs the State Rep by

N.Bikash Chbera Vs State Rep by

G.Loganathan Vs State Represented by

M.Syed Shafi Vs State Rep by

A.Sundarapandian Vs State by Its