Allowed

Loganathan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC15 Jun 2020CRL OP(MD)/5977/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench addressed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C in an FIR dated 2020 alleging offenses under IPC Section 379 relating to river sand transport. The court granted bail conditioned upon payment of Rs. 5,000 to a Medical College Hospital and appearance before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with bond of Rs. 10,000 plus two sureties, directed to pay Rs. 5,000 to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, and ordered to appear for interrogation.

Loganathan Vs The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.5977 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 15/06/2020

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.5977 of 2020

¶8

Loganathan ... Petitioner/Sole Accused

¶9

¶10

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Bhoodhalur Police Station, Thanjavur District, (Crime No.180 of 2020).

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

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

¶13

PRAYER :-

¶14

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.180 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police

¶15

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶16

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent. 2.The petitioner apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 379 of IPC r/w Section 21(4) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act in Crime No.180 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

3.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, who is the Special Sub-Inspector, gave a complaint before the respondent police as against the petitioner alleging that on 05.04.2020, on receipt of secret information that some person was carrying the river sand ½ unit in Bullock cart and at that time, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent police immediately conducted the raid and the respondent

¶18

1/3

¶19

CRL OP(MD). No.5977 of 2020

¶20

police was found that the accused person was run away from the spot and the bullock cart was seized by the respondent. Hence, a complaint has been lodged.

¶21

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the above said case. Further, the learned counsel, on instructions from the petitioner, would submit that without any prejudice his rights and contentions, the petitioner is ready to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/(Rupees five thousand only), as non-refundable compensation, by way of Demand Draft, in favour of 'The Dean, Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur District', for the purpose of providing facilities to the Health workers.

¶22

5.The learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) has opposed to grant bail to the petitioner, since investigation is at the initial stage.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions:-

¶24

(i) Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur, and on his 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 Magistrate concerned;

¶25

(ii) The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), by way of Demand Draft, in favour of ' The Dean, Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, Thanjavur', on or before 29.06.2020, for the purpose of providing facilities to the Health workers, as non-refundable compensation, without prejudice his rights and contentions since the Health workers put their lives at risk every day and play a critical role in preventing the spread of COVID19 Pandemic;

¶26

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

2/3

¶31

CRL OP(MD). No.5977 of 2020

¶32

7.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed.

¶33

8.The petitioner shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously.

sd/-

15/06/2020

/ TRUE COPY /

/ /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶38

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVAIYARU, THANJAVUR DISTRICT., 2 -DO- THRO THE CHEIF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THANJAVUR DISTRICT AT KUMBAKONAM. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE BHOODALUR POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. Copy to: THE DEAN, THANJAVUR MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THANJAVUR. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.5977 of 2020 Date :15/06/2020

¶39

PD/VR/SAR 3/18.06.2020/3P/6C

¶40

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

¶41

3/3

Loganathan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Loganathan 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

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

Nadarajan Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Vairamuthu Vs the Inspector of Police