Partly allowed

Ramasamy v. State Rep by

Madras HC16 Feb 2021CRL OP/19994/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners facing arrest for killing an Indian Gaur, noting they had sold the land in 2009. The order specifies conditions including appearance within 15 days, no tampering with evidence, and allows a fresh FIR for absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail if arrested, subject to executing a bond, appearing within 15 days, and complying with conditions against tampering.

Ramasamy Vs State Rep by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 16..02..2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.19994 of 2020

¶6

1.Ramasamy ... Petitioners 2.Jeghatharachzhan

¶7

-Versus-

¶8

The State Tamil Nadu, ... Respondent Rep. by The Forest Range Officer, Valapaddi Range, Shesachavadi, Salem District.

¶9

[W.L.O.R.No.21 of 2020]

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in W.L.O.R.No.21 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the respondent.

¶11

For Petitioners: Mr.C.K.M.Appaji

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶15

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest in connection with a criminal case in W.L.O.R. No.21 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 9 and 51 of The Wildlife Protection Act, are before this court seeking anticipatory bail.

¶16

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also perused the records carefully.

¶17

The petitioners are father and son. According to the prosecution, the petitioners own a Topioca field comprised in S.No.12/A of Sengattur Village, Salem District. On the basis of a secret information that the petitioners killed an Indian Gaur (Bos Gaurus), when the respondent conducted inspection on 20.10.2020 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dugged the suspicion part of the land belonging to the petitioners,

¶18

they found a decomposed carcasses of a wild animal - Indian Gaur (Bos Gaurus). Therefore, a case was registered against the petitioners.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, as of now, the petitioners are not the owners of the land in question as they had sold out the same as early as in 2009 and thereafter, there were several transfers of ownership. The petitioners are not even in possession of the land in question. However, the petitioners have been falsely implicated. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel produced a copy of the Encumbrance Certificate.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that there is no material available on record as of now to show that the petitioners had killed the wild animal and buried the carcase of the animal in their land.

¶21

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the investigation conducted so far revealed that the petitioners have been in possession of the land in question, though they had transferred the land to a third party in the year 2009 itself. He would further submit that the investigation also revealed the it was only these petitioners who had killed the wild animal and buried the same in the land in question.

¶22

A perusal of the available records including the encumbrance certificate would prima facie show that the petitioners sold out the land in question in the year 2009 itself to a third party and subsequently, it was transferred in favour of different persons. According to the prosecution, even though the property had been sold by the petitioners to a third party, the petitioners continued to be in possession and they only did commit the crime.

¶23

Considering the fact that, as of now, the property in question does not stand in the name of the petitioners and the available also records prima facie show that they had sold out the property in question as early as in 2009 and on considering the other facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the following conditions:-

¶24

a) Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vazhapaddi, Salem District, on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the

¶25

learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶26

[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.

¶27

[c] the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

¶28

[d] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶29

investigation or trial.

¶30

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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].

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

1 THE DISTRICIT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VAZHAPADDI, SALEM DISTRICT.

¶37

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

¶38

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SALEM [FOR INFORMATION].

¶39

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶40

4 THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, VALAPADDI RANGE, SHAESACHAVADI, SALEM DISTRICT.

¶41

+1 CC to M/S.C.K.M.APPAJI Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO. 1844

¶42

CRL OP.19994/2020
Date :16/02/2021

¶43

MN-24/02/2021

¶44

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

Ramasamy v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramasamy 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

Divaya Vs State Rep by

S.Ekambaram Vs State Rep by

E.Vijay Vs State Rep.by

R.Suresh Vs State Rep by

Muthukumar @ Ponnudurai Vs the Inspector of Police

Mariyan @ Mariya Arokyam Vs the Inspector of Police