Dismissed

Nadarajan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC15 Jun 2020CRL OP(MD)/5219/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail seeking protection against arrest for offences under Section 379 IPC. The court refused bail because the petitioners were involved in unauthorized red sand quarrying without a valid permit, noting the investigation was at an initial stage.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition No.5219 of 2020 is dismissed and anticipatory bail is not granted.

Nadarajan Vs The Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Date : 15/06/2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.5219 of 2020

¶7

Nadarajan

¶8

Jeyakumar@jeba Kumar

¶9

... Petitioners/Accused No.3 & 5

¶10

¶11

The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Colachel Police Station, Kanyakumari District. Cr No.72/2020.

¶12

... Respondent/Complainant

¶13

For Petitioner : M/s.R.Russel Raj, Advocate.

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C, prayig to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest by respondent police pending investigation in Crime No.72 of 2020.

¶16

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶17

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

¶18

The petitioners apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under section 379 IPC., in Crime No.72 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶19

3.The case of the prosecution is that on 04.03.2020 at about 03.00 hours, while the police officials were on night patrol have received secrete information through phone and accordingly, went to the occurrence place and found that the accused were loading red sand in 407 Templos by JCB bearing Reg. NO. TN 75 AK 4061 without any valid permit and ran away from the scene of occurrence.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ subgmit that the petitioner are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case.

¶21

The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the accused in this case were involving quarrying red sand, totally 18 units, by using JCB bearing Reg.No.TN-75-AK-4061, without any valid permit. The learned Government Advocate strongly oppose for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as the investigation is at an initial stage.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioiners were involving red sand quarrying without any valid permit, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, at this point of time. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

¶23

/ TRUE COPY /

¶24

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶25

¶26

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, COLACHEL POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶27

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

¶28

CRL OP(MD) No.5219 of 2020

¶29

SDS / SKN / SAR-2 (16.06.2020) 2P-3C

¶30

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

Nadarajan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadarajan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Vaithiyalingam Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Muthu Irulandi Vs The Inspector of Police

Dhanuskodi Vs The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption

T.Salomon Durairaj Vs E.Jerry Cardoza

Loganathan Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Vairamuthu Vs the Inspector of Police