Allowed

Jayaraman v. State Rep by

Madras HC13 Dec 2021CRL OP/24187/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the first petitioner in a FIR under the Forest Act and Timber Transit Rules. Bail was denied to the second petitioner as he was not an accused. The court imposed strict conditions, including a monetary deposit to an association and daily reporting.

What did the court decide?

First petitioner granted anticipatory bail to be released on execution of bond for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and compliance of specified conditions, including deposit of Rs. 30,000.

Jayaraman Vs State Rep by — Madras HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.24187 of 2021

¶6

Jayaraman

¶7

Vendhan ... Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Rep by The Forest Range Officer, Singarapettai Range, Krishnagiri District. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in S.T.O.R.No.2 of 2021 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.E.Kannadasan

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan

¶13

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 2, 35, 35(B), 36 & 58 of Forest Act 1882 and Section 2, 3 & 4 of Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules 1968, in STOR No.2 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with other accused persons were found in illegal possession of teak wood. Hence, the complaint.

¶17

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

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. However, on instructions, the learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners, on their own volition, are ready and willing to contribute a sum of Rs.30,000/to the Registered Advocate Clerk Association, Thiruppathur. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶19

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the second petitioner is not an accused in this case. He further submitted that the investigation is almost completed.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the second petitioner is not an accused in this case. Therefore, this Criminal Original Petition is closed as against the second petitioner and the investigation is almost completed, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner with certain conditions.

¶21

Accordingly, the first petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruppathur, on condition that the first petitioner 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 first petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) to the credit of the Registered Advocate Clerk Association, Thiruppathur, 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.

¶23

[b] the first petitioner 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.

¶24

[c] the first petitioner is directed to report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. .

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

[e] the first petitioner 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 first petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the first 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].

¶29

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

¶30

-sd/-

¶31

13/12/2021

¶32

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

¶33

TRUE COPY

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, THIRUPPATHUR.

¶37

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VELLORE [FOR INFORMATION].

¶38

3 THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, SINGARAPETTAI RANGE, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT

¶39

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 5 THE REGISTERED ADVOCATE, CLERK ASSOCIATION, THIRUPATTUR.

¶40

+1 CC to M/S E.KANNADASAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.14622

¶41

CRL OP.24187/2021

¶42

Date :13/12/2021 JPA 20/12/2021

¶43

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

Jayaraman v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaraman 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

Sakkir Hussain Vs the State Rep by

Kanthan Vs State Rep by

Jagadees Babu Vs Inspector of Police

Gunasekaran Vs State Rep by

G.Sundaramoorthy Vs State Rep by

Thangam @Ravichandiran Vs the State Rep by