Dismissed

Rajendran v. State Rep.by

Madras HC12 Nov 2021CRL OP/21271/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. petition, the petitioner, an accused under provisions related to illegal sand transportation, sought anticipatory bail alleging false implication. The court, noting this was the third application with no change of circumstances, declined the relief and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail was denied and the criminal original petition was dismissed.

Rajendran Vs State Rep.by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Twelfth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.21271 of 2021

¶7

RAJENDRAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

[ RESPONDENT ]

¶10

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VRIDDHACHALAM POLICE STATION, CUDDALORE DISTRICT (CRIME NO.1895 OF 2020)

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S T.MEGANATHAN Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : MR.S.SUGENDRAN, 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 Sections 379, 430 of IPC read with 21(1) of mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act in Cr.No.1895 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner transported ½ unit of river sand illegally in his tractor, without obtaining proper license. Hence, the Law Enforcing Agency registered a case against the petitioner.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl side) submits that the petitioner without obtaining any permission from the Government, had illegally dug the land and transported sand, thereby, degraded the environment and caused damages to ecology. He further submits that this is the third bail application and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶21

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶22

-sd/-

¶23

12/11/2021

¶24

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

¶25

TRUE COPY

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VRIDDHACHALAM POLICE STATION, CUDDALORE DISTRICT

¶29

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶30

CC to M/S T.MEGANATHAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶31

CRL OP.21271/2021

¶32

Date :12/11/2021 JPA 29/11/2021

¶33

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

Rajendran v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Pacifica (Chennai Project) Vs The District Collector

Balamurugan Vs State Rep by

S.Anandavel Vs The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu

C.Ashok Kumar Vs The Registrar

Capt.Lakshmi Krishnakumar Vs Union of India

Iruthayamani .K Vs State Rep by