Allowed

Murugan v. State Rep by

Madras HC4 Feb 2021CRL OP/1739/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, an owner of a bullock cart accused of illegal sand transportation. The petitioner needed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate within fifteen days of the order and execute a bond with two sureties. Several conditions regarding reporting, non-tampering with evidence, and non-absconding were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted release on bail in event of arrest subject to appearance before Magistrate within fifteen days and execution of bond with two sureties.

Murugan Vs State Rep by — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.1739 of 2021

¶6

Murugan .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State rep by .. Respondent The Inspector of Police Ambalur Police Station Vellore District Crime No.184 of 2020

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No.184 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police, on such terms and conditions.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶11

The petitioner, who is arrayed as sole accused, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 379 and 430 of IPC r/w 21(1) of Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No. 184 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶12

2 It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is said to have illegally transported ¼ unit of sand by using bullock cart without any valid licence. Hence, the case.

¶13

3 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the bullock cart. The petitioner is an innocent person and he is falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner did not commit any offene as alleged by the prosecution. Accordingly he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶14

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

¶15

4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the quantity of sand involved is ½ unit. He further submitted that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶16

5 Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel and considering that there is no previous antecedents against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions;

¶17

6 Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶18

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

¶19

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

¶20

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶21

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶22

[e] 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].

¶23

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.

¶25

-sd/-

¶26

04/02/2021

¶27

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

¶28

TRUE COPY

¶29

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, VANIYAMBADI. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VELLORE [FOR INFORMATION]. 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBALUR POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT. +1 CC to M/S.R.PARTHIBAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO. 1218 CRL OP.1739/2021 Date :04/02/2021 MN-09/02/2021

¶30

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

Murugan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan v. 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

V.Sandhiya Vs State Rep by

Ayyarappan Vs State Rep by

Ramasamy Vs State by

K.Venkatachalam Vs State Rep by

Manikandan Vs State Rep by

S.Raghavendran Vs State Rep by