Allowed

Prabu v. State Rep.by

Madras HC19 Feb 2021CRL OP/2949/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an IPC and Mines Act case involving unauthorized transportation of black stones. Bail was granted subject to specific conditions including bond execution, deposit, appearance, and detention details.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on conditions including Rs.10,000 deposit, surety bond, daily police appearance for two weeks, and prohibition on tampering/absconding.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.02.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.2949 of 2021

¶6

Prabu .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State represented by .. Respondent Inspector of Police, Kondalampatty Police Station, Salem District. (Crime No.70 of 2021)

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.70 of 2021 pending trial on the file of the respondent.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶11

The petitioner apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Section 379 of IPC r/w Section 21(4) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 in Crime No.70 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶12

The case of the prosecution is that when the respondent police were on routine check up, they intercepted the lorry belonging to the petitioner and on inspection they found 20 black stones without any valid license and bill. Hence, the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not indulged in any offence and hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶14

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vehicle and he has transported 20 black stones unauthorizedly.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is prepared to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- without prejudice to his defence.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions :

¶17

(a) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-V, Salem, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, 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:

¶18

(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.

¶19

(c) The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten Thousand only) to the credit of St.Soosaiyappar Karunai Illam, R.C.Primary School, Punnai Nagar, Holy Cross Road, Nagercoil - 629004, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., Nagercoil Branch, (A/c.No.0051 0005 0309 131, IFSC No.TMBL00000005), within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court ;

¶20

(d) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶21

(e) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶22

(f) The petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶23

(g) 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].

¶24

(h) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

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

¶26

-sd/-

¶27

19/02/2021

¶28

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

¶29

TRUE COPY

¶30

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-V, SALEM. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SALEM [FOR INFORMATION]. 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDALAMPATTY POLICE STATION, SALEM DISTRICT.

¶31

5 ST.SOOSAIYAPPAR KARUNAI ILLAM, R.C.PRIMARY SCHOOL, PUNNAI NAGAR, HOLY CROSS ROAD, NAGERCOIL – 629 004, TAMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LTD., NAGERCOIL BRANCH, (A/C.NO.005100050309131, IFSC CODE: TMBL0000005)

¶32

+1 CC to M/S. W.CAMYLES GANDHI Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO. 2070

¶33

CRL OP.2949/2021

¶34

Date :19/02/2021

¶35

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

¶36

MN-26/02/2021

Prabu v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabu 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

Desappan Vs State Rep. by

Kamal Raj Vs State by

S.Sivakumar Vs the State Rep. by

Perumal Vs the Inspector of Police

Ronik B. Shah Vs State Rep by

Shri Bharat H.Shah Vs State Rep by