Allowed

G.Natarasan v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC7 Sept 2021CRL OP/16187/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of illegal sand transportation under the Mines and Minerals Act and IPC. The Court imposed conditions including a non-refundable deposit, surrender within 15 days, and reporting to police, citing rehabilitation needs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with conditions: Rs. 10,000 deposit to Trust, surrender before Magistrate in 15 days, daily police reporting, and surety bonds.

G.Natarasan Vs the State Rep.by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Seventh day of September Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.16187 of 2021

¶7

[ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEENSURUTTI POLICE STATION, ARIYALUR DISTRICT. CRIME NO.445 OF 2021.

¶10

[ RESPONDENT ]

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S. M.KAVIKANNAN Advocate

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 and under Section 379 of IPC in Crime No.445 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was involved in illegal transportation of 1 unit of odai sand by using bullock cart.

¶17

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. However, on instructions, he further submits that the petitioner, without prejudice to his rights, is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Mineral Foundation Trust that may be imposed by this Court.

¶18

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the vehicle involved was seized by the respondent police. He further submitted that if the persons are caught with illegal sand in the mining area, necessarily they could be released on bail by imposing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ condition of deposit of any amount as may be ordered by this Court.

¶19

In view of formation of District Mineral Foundation Trust in each District, the amount may directed to be deposited to the credit of the said Trust for rehabilitation in the areas affected by illegal sand mining.

¶20

5.In view of the rehabilitation undertaken by the State Government under the Tamil Nadu District Mineral Foundation Rules, 2017, and in order to curb the illegal sand mining activities and also considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner may be directed to make a non refundable deposit of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the credit of the concerned District Mineral Foundation Trust, without prejudice to his rights and contentions. The amount so deposited shall be utilised by the Trust for rehabilitation works.

¶21

6.It is made clear that the deposit of the amount by the petitioner to the Trust would not amount to admission of guilt. The trial Court shall deal with the case independently on merits without reference to the amount deposited at the stage of anticipatory bail.

¶22

7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on certain conditions.

¶23

8.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Jayankondam, on condition that the petitioner shall execute 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶24

(a)if the petitioner failed to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

¶25

(b)the petitioner shall make a non refundable deposit of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) through demand draft to the credit of the Chairman/District Collector, District Mineral Foundation Trust of the concerned District, without prejudice to their defence before the trial Court and the learned Judicial Magistrate, after perusing the challan/ receipt, shall accept the sureties furnished by the petitioner;

¶26

(c)the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶27

(d)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;

¶28

(e)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶29

(f)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶30

(g)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

¶31

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;

¶32

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

¶33

-sd/-

¶34

07/09/2021

¶35

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

¶36

TRUE COPY

¶37

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

¶38

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, JAYANKONDAM.

¶39

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ARIYALUR. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶40

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶41

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEENSURUTTI POLICE STATION, ARIYALUR DISTRICT.

¶42

5 THE CHAIRMAN/DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT MINERAL FOUNDATION TRUST, ARIYALUR.

¶43

+2 CC to M/S. M.KAVIKANNAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.9847

¶44

CRL OP.16187/2021

¶45

Date :07/09/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TA-14/09/2021

G.Natarasan v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Natarasan 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

Thangavel Vs State Rep by

Shoodesh Vs State Rep by

Hari Vs the State Rep by

D.Jayaprakash Vs Inspector of Police

K.Rajendran Vs State Rep by

Rajasekar Vs the State Rep.by