Allowed

Rajadurai v. State Rep by

Madras HC12 Nov 2021CRL OP/21300/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Original Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Madras High Court granted bail to petitioners accused of illegal transportation of building sand. The court imposed strict conditions including bond execution, fine deposit, and reporting duties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail on payment of Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, deposit of Rs.15,000, and compliance with daily reporting and other conditions.

Rajadurai Vs State Rep by — Bail and Remand | 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 Mrs Justice T.V. THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.21300 of 2021

¶7

1 RAJADURAI [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED] 2 RAJAVANNIAN

¶8

¶9

STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIKRAVANDI POLICE STATION, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT. Crime No.581 of 2021

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S A.M. RAHAMATH ALI Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR. N.S.SUGANTHAN, 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 petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 379 I.P.C and 21(1) of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957, in Crime No.581 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution that the petitioners were involved in illegal transportation of 2 units of M sand in a lorry, without obtaining any permission from the concerned authorities. Hence, the Law Enforcing Agency registered a case against the petitioners.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioners involved in illegal transportation of 2 units of M sand. He further submitted that there are four previous cases pending against the petitioners. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶18

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

¶19

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶20

Accordingly, the petitioners is ordered to be released on

¶21

bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Vikravandi on condition that the petitioners shall execute a 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:

¶22

[a] the petitioners are directed to deposit a

¶23

sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the credit of the Registered Advocate Clerk Association, Cuddalore District within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall produce the said receipt before the Court below.

¶24

[b] the petitioners 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.

¶25

[c] the petitioners are directed to report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

¶26

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

¶27

[e] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶28

[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].

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

-sd/-

¶32

12/11/2021

¶33

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

¶34

TRUE COPY

¶35

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

¶36

1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIKRAVANDI

¶37

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VILLUPURAM(FOR INFORMATION)

¶38

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIKRAVANDI POLICE STATION, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT.

¶39

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶40

5 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, REGISTERED ADVOCATE CLERK ASSOCIATION, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.

¶41

CC to M/S A.M. RAHAMATH ALI Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.12799

CRL OP.21300/2021

Date :12/11/2021

RVR 17/11/2021

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

Rajadurai v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajadurai 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

Lakshmipathy Vs State Rep by

Vedanayagam Vs State Rep by

S.Palanisamy Vs State Rep by

Subramanian Vs Inspector of Police

C.Manivannan Vs State by

Ramesh Vs State Rep by