Dismissed

Parthiban v. State Rep by

Madras HC22 Oct 2021CRL OP/19667/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by a petitioner accused of illegally transporting river sand without a permit. The court rejected the prayer due to the petitioner's prior convictions and the severe ecological impact of sand mining.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail prayed for by the petitioner was denied and the petition was dismissed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Twenty Second day of October Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.19667 of 2021

¶7

PARTHIBAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATPADI POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT. CR.NO.468 OF 2021.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S. M.SATHISH KUMAR Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : M/S.C.E.PRATAP, 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 offence punishable under Section 379 & 430 of I.P.C in Crime No.468 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was involved in illegal transportation of one unit of river sand using a Bullock cart and the same was seized by the respondent police.

¶16

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

¶17

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the petitioner had illegally transported one unit of river sand using a Bullock cart without any valid permit and that there are three previous cases against the petitioner.

¶18

This Court on the earlier occasion in Crl.O.P.No.15249 of 2020 by order dated 28.09.2020, following the orders passed by this Court in a batch of applications in Crl.O.P.No.13334 of 2020 dated 03.09.2020 had dismissed the earlier application expressing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ opinion that the offenders despite several orders passed by various

¶19

Benches of this Court regarding illegal sand mining and knowing fully well about the evil consequences affecting the environment and society at large and the implications thereon are indulging in the offences of illegal quarrying/mining, theft and smuggling of sand and minerals and that finding that the case comes under the category of cases of large magnitude affecting and impacting livelihood of a very large number of people knowingly and unknowingly, had dismissed the earlier application. Subsequently, the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.13334 of 2020 and Batch etc. dated 03.09.2020 was clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not agreed with the broad sweep of the observation made by this Court in Paragraph 27 of the order in Crl.O.P.No.13334 of 2020 and connected matters decided on 03.09.2020 and had directed that the Court should take into consideration the role assigned to the person on case to case basis.

¶20

A perusal of the materials reveal that the petitioner was apprehended with one unit of river sand, which was being transported with the a Bullock cart without any permit. That being the case, the illegal lifting and transportation of sand has been deprecated by this court in various decisions, keeping in mind the need for maintaining the ecological balance and the conservation of water table in the locality, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, giving any leniency to the petitioner by granting anticipatory bail would only lead to the petitioner perpetrating the offence once again and, therefore, in the fitness of things, this court is not inclined to accede to the prayer as sought for by the petitioner. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail sought for cannot be granted and this petition is dismissed.

¶21

-sd/-

¶22

22/10/2021

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATPADI POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT.

¶27

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶28

+1 CC to M/S. M.SATHISH KUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.11585

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TA-10/11/2021

Parthiban v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parthiban 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

A.v.Sagunthala Vs R.Moorthy

Govindaraj Vs State Rep by

Chellamuthu Vs the State Rep by

Ramesh Vs State Rep. by

D.Mohan Kumar Vs Iop Ccb Cmb

P.Jayabal Vs State Rep by