Dismissed

R.Balasubramaniyan v. the State Rep by

Madras HC23 Sept 2020CRL OP/14906/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for illegal sand mining under Section 379 IPC. The Court held discretionary powers cannot be exercised for such offenders given the environmental impact and prior orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed; arrest warrant to be issued as per law.

R.Balasubramaniyan Vs the State Rep by — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.09.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTIC E A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.14906 of 2020

¶6

R.Balasubramaniyan

¶7

... Petitioner/1^st Accused

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Vadalore Police Station, Cuddalore District. (Crime No. 862 of 2020)

¶10

... Respondent/Complainant

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 862 of 2020, pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Omsairam

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz

¶14

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶16

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 379 of IPC read with Sections 4(1)(1A) and 21(1) of Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No. 862 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

2 The case of the prosecution is that on 04.09.2020, at about 07.00 a.m., while Additional Director of Geology and Mines Department was conducting sudden inspection near PSP Petrol Bunk at about 02.50 a.m., the petitioner was found in illegal transportation of White M Sand without any valid licence. Hence, the complaint.

¶18

3 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶19

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

¶20

4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner without obtaining any permission from the Government had manufactured M-sand and transported sand, thereby degraded the environment and caused damages to the ecology. Hence, he vehemently opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶21

5 This Court is of the opinion that the offenders despite several orders passed by various benches of this Court regarding illegal sand mining and quarrying knowing fully well about the evil consequences affecting the environment and society at large and the implications thereon are indulging in the offences of illegal quarrying/mining, theft and smuggling of sand and minerals. These cases come within the category of cases of large magnitude affecting and impacting livelihood of a very large number of people knowingly and unknowingly.

¶22

6 This Court finds that the discretionary power has been consciously and continuously misused by the offenders in an organised manner and this Court is of the firm opinion that the discretionary powers cannot be extended to persons indulging in illegal sand mining, smuggling and theft of sand and minerals.

¶23

7 In view of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.13334 of 2020 etc., Batch, dated 03.09.2020, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

¶24

-sd/23/09/2020 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶25

TRUE COPY

¶26

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶27

¶28

1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KURNJIPADI.

¶29

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶30

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

¶31

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADALORE POLICE STATION, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.

¶32

CC to M/S.OMSAIRAM Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶33

CRL OP.14906/2020
Date :23/09/2020
cs 06/10/2020

¶34

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

R.Balasubramaniyan v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Balasubramaniyan v. the State Rep by

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

Balaji Vs State Rep by

Narasimman Vs the State Rep by

K.S.Jhon Isac Ruban Vs the Inspector of Police

Prabu Vs State by

Sundaramoorthy Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthukumar Vs State Rep.by