Dismissed

Kumar v. State by

Madras HC2 Jul 2021CRL OP/11349/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for charges involving illegal river sand transportation and breach of mining regulations. The court expressed that such cases impact the environment and ecology on a large magnitude, finding the petitioner misusing the court's discretionary power. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal original petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Kumar Vs State by — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Second day of July Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.11349 of 2021

¶7

KUMAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

STATE BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT. CRIME NO.157/2021.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.R.SURESH KUMAR Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR. A. GOPINATH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Section 379, 430 of IPC read with Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 in Crime No.157 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused were involved in illegal transportation of one unit of river sand by using lorry.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, the learned counsel prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

4.The learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner along with other accused person have illegally transported one unit of sand by using lorry and there is a previous case pending against the petitioner and hence he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

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

¶19

5.This court is of the opinion that these types of cases are impacting large Magnitude and the petitioner is misusing the discretionary power of this Court and continues with the offences affecting the environment and ecology.

¶20

6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

¶21

-sd/-

¶22

02/07/2021

¶23

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶24

TRUE COPY

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VENGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

¶28

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶29

CC to M/S.R.SURESH KUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges

CRL OP.11349/2021

Date :02/07/2021

APN 20/07/2021

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

Kumar v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar v. State 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

Babu Vs State Rep by

R.Balasubrmanian, 51 Years Vs S.N.Palanisamy

K.Manoharan, Vs State Rep. by

R.Ponmani Vs Mohan

Ketha Chalapathi Babu Vs State Rep by

Shri Anil Kumar Ojha, Vs the Assistant Commissioner of