Allowed

Karthigainathan, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC15 May 2019CRL OP(MD)/6921/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding allegations of illegal sand transport. The court granted bail subject to monetary deposit, reporting conditions, and an undertaking not to tamper with evidence or abscond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail upon deposit of Rs.45,000 for hospital aid, execution of bond with sureties, daily reporting, and undertaking not to abscond or tamper with evidence.

Karthigainathan, Vs the Inspector of Police — Mining and Natural Resources | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Sixteenth day of May Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT

¶3

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI

¶4

CRL OP(MD) No.6921 of 2019

¶5

KARTHIGAINATHAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN

¶6

STATE REP. BY

¶7

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUPUVANAM POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

¶8

CRIME NO.166/2019 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶9

For Petitioner : M/S.A.BANUMATHY Advocate

¶10

For Respondent : MR.A.ROBINSON, 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 petitioner/accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and 21(4) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act in Crime No.166 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶14

2.Heard Mr.A.Banumathy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Robinson, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State.

¶15

3.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused are said to have illegally transported three units of river sand. Hence, the complaint.

¶16

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. According to him, there is no bad antecedent against him and to show his bonafide he is also prepared to deposit some amount.

¶17

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police opposes the grant of bail that the petitioner is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ involved in illegal sand mining and was in possession of three units of sand.

¶18

¶19

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no bad antecedent against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.

¶20

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five thousand only) to the account of Patient Welfare Society, District Headquarters Hospital, Sivagangai District and preferably it can be utilized for the purpose of installation of UPS (invertor) in the Hospital wards depending upon the requirements with in the District, on such deposit, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance,on 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 Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District and on further conditions that:-

¶21

[a] the petitioner as well as the sureties shall submit a copy of their Aadhar card or any other identity cards issued by the Government, in proof of their address, along with the surety bonds.

¶22

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m, until further orders.

¶23

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

¶24

[d] the petitioner shall co-operate for the investigation and the trial. The petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial and in event of the petitioner absconds, the respondent police shall register a case as provided under Section 229-A IPC.

¶25

[e] in the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate / trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner, as per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶26

8.Merely, because the petitioner had 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.

¶27

sd/16/05/2019

¶28

/ TRUE COPY /

¶29

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶30

¶31

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MANAMADURAI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

¶32

¶33

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

¶34

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUPUVANAM POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

¶35

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

¶36

+1 CC to M/s.A.BANUMATHY, Advocate ( SR-8515[I] dated 16/05/2019 )

¶37

COPY TO: THE PATIENT WELFARE SOCIETY, DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS HOSPITAL, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.6921 of 2019 Date :16/05/2019 JM/PN/SAR 2/22.05.2019/3P/7C

¶38

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

Karthigainathan, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthigainathan, 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

Emmanuel A.G.S. Vs the Secretary to Government

Jose Ananth Singh Vs the Inspector of Police

S.R. Mahesh Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Bala Alias Pathinettam Vs the Inspector of Police

S.K.Suresh Anand, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Periyasamy Vs the Inspector of Police