Allowed

Kanagaraj v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC4 May 2020CRL OP/7266/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted bail to two petitioners arrested for illegally transporting river sand. The court ordered a Rs.5,000 donation and a personal bond of Rs.10,000 as conditions for release pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted upon condition of depositing Rs.5,000 each to the Chief Minister Public Relief Fund and executing a personal bond for Rs.10,000 each.

Kanagaraj Vs the State Rep. by — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.7266 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.05.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.7266 of 2020
1.Kanagaraj
S/o.Baskar,
Chinna Street, Nalanputhur,
Kattumannarkudi,
Cuddalore – District
2.Prakash,
S/o.Krishnamoorthy,
Mela Street, Kamachipuram
Vettamangalam,
Thanjavur District ... Petitioners
Vs.
The State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Kuttalam Police Station,
Nagapattinam District,
Cr. No.95 of 2020 ... Respondent

¶7

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to enlarge

¶8

the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime No.95 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

1/6

¶11

Crl.O.P.No.7266 of 2020

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.U.Kathiravan For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.03.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 379 & 430 of IPC r/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act in Crime

¶15

No.95 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners transported

¶17

river sand illegally by using a motor vehicle for commercial purpose. Hence

¶18

the complaint.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit

¶20

that the petitioners are not involved in the above alleged offence and they are

¶21

no way connected with the offence as alleged by the prosecution and they did

¶22

not commit any offence. On instruction, it is submitted that in order to show their bonafide, the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- each to the Chief Minister Public Relief Fund. Further he submits

¶23

that the petitioners are in judicial custody for the past three weeks and hence,

¶24

he seeks bail for the petitioners.

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

2/6

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.7266 of 2020

¶28

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) would

¶29

submit that the quantity of sand involved is ½ unit and the same was recovered. He further submitted that the investigation is pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

¶30

Taking into consideration the nature of allegations against the

¶31

petitioners in the FIR and also taking note of the fact that the petitioners are in judicial custody from 20.03.2020, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:

¶32

[a] the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) each to t he Chief Minister Public Relief Fund, and on such deposit the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on executing their own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each before the Superintendent of the concerned prison;

¶33

[b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶34

[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶35

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

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶37

3/6

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.7266 of 2020

¶39

[e] 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

¶40

[(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under
Section 229A IPC.
6. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is
ordered.
04.05.2020
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
lok

¶41

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶42

4/6

¶43

Crl.O.P.No.7266 of 2020

¶44

¶45

The District and Sessions Judge Nagapattinam

¶46

The Inspector of Police,
Kuttalam Police Station,
Nagapattinam District
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
4. The Superintendent,
Sub Jail, Mayiladuthurai.

¶47

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶48

5/6

¶49

Crl.O.P.No.7266 of 2020

¶50

lok

¶51

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶52

Crl.O.P.No.7266 of 2020

¶53

04.05.2020

¶54

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶55

6/6

Kanagaraj v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanagaraj 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Balasubramanian Vs the Inspector of Police - Ccb

Ammasi Vs State Rep. by

Senthil Vs Gowtham Traders

Ayyampillai Vs State Rep.by

Dilip Kumar Vs the Senior Intelligence Officer

Marija Lijose Kumar Vs State Rep by