Allowed

Sathish v. State Rep by

Madras HC5 Feb 2021CRL OP/1749/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Grants anticipatory bail to petitioner facing charges for unauthorized sand transportation. Imposes strict conditions including daily police appearance, execution of bond with sureties, and prohibits absconding or tampering with evidence. Allows fresh FIR registration upon absconding.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail in event of arrest subject to bond with two sureties, daily police appearance, prohibition of absconding and tampering with evidence.

Sathish Vs State Rep by — Money Laundering | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 05.02.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN Crl.O.P.No.1749 of 2021

¶5

Sathish ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.
The State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Ambalur Police Station
Vellore District.
(Crime No.387 of 2020) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of his arrest in Crime No. 387 of 2020 pending investigation
on the file of the Respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Parthiban
For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶7

The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 379 and 430 of I.P.C., r/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 in Crime No. 387 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, and now, he has filed this petition seeking to grant anticipatory bail.

¶8

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a driver of the bullock cart. On the date of occurrence, on a secret information, when the respondent police was in routine vehicle checkup, they found that the petitioner said to have transported ¼ unit of sand in a bullock cart without having valid license. On seeing the police, he has escaped from the place of occurrence. Hence, the criminal case has been registered against the petitioner.

¶9

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

¶10

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the offence. He would submit that he has been falsely implicated as accused in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶11

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is the driver of a bullock cart and he has transported ¼ unit of sand illegally without having valid license. He would submit that on seeing the police, he has escaped from the place of occurrence. He has further submitted that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶12

I have heard and considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records.

¶13

Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

¶14

a) 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, 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, 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:

¶15

[b] 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;

¶16

[c] the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for the period of two weeks ;

¶17

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶18

[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶19

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

¶20

[f] 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];

¶21

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶22

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

¶23

-sd/05/02/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, 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.1217

¶24

CRL OP.1749/2021 Date :05/02/2021 cs 12/02/2021

¶25

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

Sathish v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathish 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

Rajkumar Vs State Rep. by

S.Santhosh Vs the State Rep.by Its

Pichaimani Vs State Rep.by

S.Surya Vs State Rep by

Tae Hyup Kim Vs State Rep by

Anand Kumar Parakh Vs State Rep. by