Allowed

Veeramani, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC26 Apr 2019CRL OP(MD)/6096/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of illegal sand transportation. The Court directed a non-refundable deposit of Rs. 25,000 to the District Mineral Foundation Trust as a condition for bail, clarifying it does not constitute an admission of guilt.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to a non-refundable deposit of Rs. 25,000 to the District Mineral Foundation Trust, execution of a bond, and reporting to police.

Veeramani, Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

Friday, the Twenty Sixth day of April Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.6096 of 2019

¶7

1 VEERAMANI 2 VARATHARAJAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1 & 3 Vs

¶8

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AMMAPETTA POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.132/2019) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶9

For Petitioners: Mr.K.M.KARUNAKARAN Advocate

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶13

The petitioners, who are apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 379 of IPC r/w.21(4) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act in Crime No.132 of 2019, seek anticipatory bail.

¶14

The case of the prosecution is that the 1 ½ units of sand has been illegally transported by the petitioners.

¶15

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. However, on instruction, he would further submit that the petitioners are ready to deposit any amount to the District Mineral Foundation Trust without prejudice to his rights.

¶16

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the State submitted that the vehicle was seized by the respondent police and there is no case pending against the petitioners. He further submitted that if the person is caught with illegal sand in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the mining area, he has to be directed to deposit the conditional amount to the credit of Crime number. However, in view of formation

¶17

¶18

of District Mineral Foundation Trust in each district, the amount may be deposited to the credit of the said Trust for rehabilitation in the areas affected by illegal sand mining.

¶19

5.In view of the rehabilitation undertaken by the State Government under the Tamil Nadu District Mineral Foundation Rules, 2017, and in order to curb the illegal sand mining activities and also considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are directed to make a non refundable deposit of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) jointly to the credit of the concerned District Mineral Foundation Trust, without prejudice to their rights and contentions. This amount so deposited shall be utilised by the Trust for rehabilitation works.

¶20

6.It is made clear that the deposit of the amount by the petitioners to the Trust would not amount to admission of guilt. The trial Court shall deal with the case independently on merits without reference to the amount deposited at the stage of anticipatory bail.

¶21

7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side), this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶22

8.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam, Thanjavur District on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶23

(i) if the petitioners failed to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled.

¶24

(ii) the petitioners shall make a non refundable deposit of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) jointly through demand draft to the credit of the Chairman/District Collector, District Mineral Foundation Trust of the concerned District, without prejudice to his defence before the trial Court and the learned Judicial Magistrate, after perusing the challan/ receipt, shall accept the sureties furnished by the petitioners;

¶25

(iii) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate/concerned court may https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶26

¶27

(iv) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police at 10.30.a.m., until further orders.

¶28

(v) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶29

(vii) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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];

¶30

(viii) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶31

sd/26/04/2019

¶32

/ TRUE COPY /

¶33

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PAPANASAM, THANJAUVR DISTRICT.

¶34

DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THANJAVUR DISTRICT AT KUMBAKONAM.

¶35

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AMMAPETTA POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

¶36

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

¶37

COPY TO:

¶38

THE CHAIRMAN/DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT MINERAL FOUNDATION TRUST, THANJAUVR DISTRICT.

¶39

+1. CC to Mr.K.M.KARUNAKARAN Advocate SR.No.7547

¶40

ORDER

¶41

IN CRL OP(MD) No.6096 of 2019 Date :26/04/2019 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MS/MMS/SAR-1/29.04.2019/3P.7C

Veeramani, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeramani, 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

Sangili Vs the Inspector of Police

Ramajayam Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Saravanan Vs the District Collector

S.Muthusamy, Vs the District Collector

M/S.Vedha Spinning Mills P Ltd. Vs the Superintending Engineer

K.Hemanth Kumar Vs Small Industries Development