Dismissed

Desiga @ Deivasigamani v. State Rep by

Madras HC8 Mar 2021CRL OP/4303/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition, the High Court rejected a plea for anticipatory bail filed by a petitioner accused of illegally transporting river sand. The Court emphasized the petitioner's status as a habitual offender with 51 prior cases, denying bail by analogy to the Sand blasting issue previously addressed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal original petition is dismissed.

Desiga @ Deivasigamani Vs State Rep by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 08.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.4303 of 2021

¶6

DESIGA @ DEIVASIGAMANI

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State by its Inspector of Police Cheyyar Police Station Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District (Crime No.3102 of 2020) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.3102 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar For Respondent : Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶11

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 430 of IPC read with 21(5) M.M. Act and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act in Crime No.3102 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶12

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Venkatesan, Spl. Sub Inspector of Police, is that on 22.09.2020 while he along with his party was on watch in respect of illegal sand mining, the petitioner along with other accused was found illegally transporting three units of river sand by using lorry bearing Regn.No.TN31 H 2147 without any valid permission. Hence, the complaint.

¶13

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that this is the second application for anticipatory bail and the earlier application was

¶14

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

¶15

dismissed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.18128 of 2020 by order dated 19.11.2020 following the orders passed in Crl.O.P.No.13334 of 2020 etc. batch dated 03.09.2020. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶16

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose stating that the petitioner along with other accused was found transporting 3 units of river sand without obtaining permission from the Government and thereby, degraded the environment and caused damages to the ecology. He would further submit that the petitioner is a habitual offender and that he has got 51 previous cases to his credit and twice he has been detained under the Goondas Act. The details of previous cases are listed as follows;

¶17

Sl. No.	Station	Cr. No.	Sec PRO CASES Stage of Case
1.	Cheyyar	1652/200 5	41(i), 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A) ii TNP Act PT (PRC 16/07)
2.	Cheyyar	127/2006	4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1- A) ii TNP Act UI
3.	Cheyyar PEW	124/2006	4(1)(aa) TNP Act UI (absconding)
4.	Cheyyar PEW	144/2006	4(1)(aa) TNP Act UI (absconding)
5.	Cheyyar PEW	371/2006	4(1)(i) (aaa) TNP Act UI (absconding)
6.	Cheyyar PEW	482/2006	4(1)(i) (aaa) TNP Act UI (absconding)
7.	Cheyyar	1185/200 6	4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A) ii TNP Act UI
8.	Cheyyar	1203/200 6	4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A) ii TNP Act UI
9.	Cheyyar	1345/200 6	4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A) ii TNP Act UI
10.	Cheyyar PEW	86/2007	4(1)(i) (aaa) TNP Act UI
11.	Cheyyar PEW	859/2007	4(1)(i) (aaa) TNP Act UI (absconding)
12.	Cheyyar PEW	46/2008	4(1)(i) (aaa) TNP Act UI (absconding)
13.	Anakkavur	200/2008	4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A) ii TNP Act @ 6 of R.S Rules UI
14.	Cheyyar	209/2008	4(1) (i) r/w 4(1-A) ii TNP Act UI (absconding)

¶18

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

¶19

Sl. No.	Station	Cr.	No. Sec PRO CASES Stage of Case
15.	Cheyyar	210/	2008 4(1) (i) r/w 4(1-A) ii TNP Act UI (absconding)
16.	Cheyyar	PEW 325/	2008 4(1)(i) (aaa) r/w 4(1-A) ii TNP Act UI
17.	Cheyyar	PEW 510/	2008 4(1)(i) (aaa) r/w 4(1-A) ii TNP Act & 5, 7 of R.S. Rules UI
18.	Cheyyar	71/2	009 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A) ii TNP Act UI
19.	Cheyyar	916/	2009 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A) ii TNP Act UI
20.	Cheyyar	PEW 64/2	010 4(1) (a) r/w 4(1-A) ii TNP Act UI
21.	Cheyyar	PEW 186/	2010 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A) ii TNP Act @ 6 of R.S Rules UI
Sl. No.	Station	Cr. No.	Sec Stage of Case
OTH	ER IPC C	ASES
22.	Cheyyar PEW	1219/200 4	147, 148, 324, 323, 294 (b), 506(ii) IPC @ 147, 148, 324, 323 & 302 IPC PT (PRC 13/2005 & Sc.02/2006)
23.	Cheyyar	930/2005	294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC Acquitted u/S.248 (i) Cr.P.C
24.	Cheyyar	169/2007	294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC PT (CC.105/2007)
25.	Cheyyar	697/2008	294(b), 355, 506(i) IPC Acquitted on 10.07.2015
26.	Cheyyar	707/2008	147, 148, 294(b), 379, 506(i) IPC Acquitted on 24.08.2012
27.	Moranam	268/2009	294(b), 341, 506(i) IPC NTF
28.	Cheyyar	149/2010	147, 384 IPC Conviction fined Rs.1000/- on
			08.07.2012
29.	Cheyyar	496/2010	147, 148, 324, 307 IPC NTF
30	Cheyyar	503/2010	147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 307 IPC PT
31.	Cheyyar	1119/201 0	294(b), 323, 342, 3379, 506(ii) IPC Acquitted on 25.07.2012
32.	Cheyyar	1125/201 0	294(b), 341, 323, 417, 420, 506(ii) IPC Acquitted on 08.07.2017

¶20

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

¶21

Sl. No.	Station	Cr. No. Sec Stage of Case
33.	Cheyyar	1452/201 0 294(b), 341, 323, 417, 420, 506(ii) IPC Acquitted on 08.07.2017
34.	Anakkavu r	41/2011 447, 379, 506(ii) IPC Acquitted on 24.06.2015
35.	Cheyyar	838/2011 294(b), 506(ii) IPC and 3 of PPDL Act PT
36.	Cheyyar	865/2011 294(b), 341, 506(ii), 307 IPC PT
38.	Vandavas i North P.S	48/2013 147, 148, 353, 307 IPC NTF
39.	Cheyyar	398/2013 341, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC r/w 4 of WH Act UI
40.	Cheyyar	19/2014 143, 188 IPC UI
41.	Cheyyar	32/2014 147, 148, 153(A), 324, 506(ii) IPC & 3 of PPDL Act UI
42.	Cheyyar	39/2014 147, 148, 324, 506(ii) IPC r/w 3 of PPDL Act UI
Sl. No.	Station	Cr. No. Sec Stage of Case
SAN	D CASE DET	AILS
43.	Cheyyar	885/2018 379, 430 IPC UI
44.	Cheyyar	906/2018 379, 430 IPC r/w 3 of PPDL Act UI
45.	Cheyyar	963/2018 379, 430 IPC r/w 3 of PPDL Act UI
46.	Cheyyar	1009/2018 379, 430 IPC r/w 3 of PPDL Act UI
47.	Cheyyar	88/2020 379, 430 IPC r/w 21(5) MM Act and 3 of PPDL Act UI
48.	Cheyyar	1307/2020 379, 430 IPC r/w 21(5) MM Act and 3 of PPDL Act UI
49.	Cheyyar	3102/2020 379, 430 IPC r/w 21(5) MM Act and 3 of PPDL Act DR:24.09.20 UI

¶22

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

¶23

Sl.	Station	Cr. No.	Sec			Stage
No.
50.	Moranam	1853/2020	379, Act DR:24	430 IPC and 3 .09.20	r/w 21(5) MM of PPDL Act	UI
51.	Anakkavoor	2372/2020	379, Act DR:24	430 IPC and 3 .09.20	r/w 21(5) MM of PPDL Act	UI

¶24

Goondas Case Details:

¶25

1.Vellore District Ranipet PEW Cr.No.416/2014 U/S 4(!) (a), 4(1A) ii TNP Act @ 6, 7 of TNRS Rules & 36, 66 Tamil Nadu Excise Act r/w 420 IPC.D.O No.110/2014 dated 27.12.2014.

¶26

2.Cheyyar P.S. Cr. No.865/2011 u/s.294(b), 341, 506(ii), 307 IPC D.O No.02/2012, Dated 28.01.2012.

¶27

This Court on the earlier occasion in Crl.O.P.No.18128 of 2020 by order dated 19.11.2020, following the orders passed by this Court in a batch of applications in Crl.O.P.No.13334 of 2020 dated 03.09.2020 had dismissed the earlier application expressing the opinion that the offenders despite several orders passed by various Benches of this Court regarding illegal sand mining and knowing fully well about the evil consequences affecting the environment and society at large and the implications thereon are indulging in the offences of illegal quarrying/mining, theft and smuggling of sand and minerals and that finding that the case comes under the category of cases of large magnitude affecting and impacting livelihood of a very large number of people knowingly and unknowingly, had dismissed the earlier application. Subsequently, the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.13334 of 2020 and Batch etc. dated 03.09.2020 was clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not agreed with the broad sweep of the observation made by this Court in Paragraph 27 of the order in Crl.O.P.No.13334 of 2020 and connected matters decided on 03.09.2020 and had directed that the Court should take into consideration the role assigned to the person on case to case basis.

¶28

Accordingly, this Court takes into consideration, the role assigned to the petitioner in the present case. In this case on hand, it is seen that the petitioner along with other accused has committed theft of three units of river sand and transported the same without any valid permission from the Government. Further, the petitioner is a habitual offender and has got 51 previous cases to his credit and thereby, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶29

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

¶30

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶31

-sd/-
08/03/2021
This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried
into execution by all concerned
TRUE COPY
Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHEYYAR POLICE STATION,
CHEYYAR, THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT.
CC to M/S.K.G.SENTHIL KUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary
charges
CRL OP.4303/2021
Date :08/03/2021
rvr 31/03/2021

¶32

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

Desiga @ Deivasigamani v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Desiga @ Deivasigamani 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

Maruthupandi Vs State Rep by

M.Dhamodaran Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Desingu Vs State Rep. by

S.Surya Vs the State

K.Karthick Vs the Inspector of Police

Vankatachalam Vs State Rep.by Its