Dismissed

Settu v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC22 Mar 2021CRL OP/4629/2021

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 dismissed the plea. The petitioner, apprehending arrest for illegal sand mining and theft, sought bail. Noting no material change in circumstances since a prior dismissal and the nature of the offence affecting the environment, the Court refused the application.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail sought by the petitioner was not granted; the Criminal Original Petition was dismissed.

Settu Vs the State Rep. by — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 22.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.4629 of 2021

¶6

Settu

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Vs. State represented by ... Respondent The Inspector Of Police, Tirupattur Taluk Police Station, Tirupattur District. (Cr.No.714 of 2020)

¶9

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.714 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.T.Shunmuga Rajeshwaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶11

ORDER (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶12

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 430 of IPC and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act in Crime No.714 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶13

On earlier occasion i.e.18.03.2021, Mr.J.Muthukumaran, learned Counsel would submit that the petitioner had taken vakkalath from him and thereby, this Court directed the Registry to print the name of the petitioner and his name is printed, however, today i.e. 22.03.2021, there is no representation for the petitioner.

¶14

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant/ Mr.Jayakumar, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Thirupattur Taluk P.S., is that on 14.07.2020, on information that certain persons were indulging in sand theft, and thereby causing damage to the environment, the defacto complainant along with his police party was keeping a watch and when they intercepted a Tractor bearing Regn.No.TN 23 BK 6468, it was found to contain 1 unit of river sand without any valid permission and on seeing the Police, the driver of the Tractor had run away leaving the Tractor. Later, the driver was identified as Settu S/o.Thanigasalam, Hence, the complaint. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner was found transporting one unit of river sand without any valid permission from the Government thereby degraded the environment and caused damages to the ecology. He would submit that the earlier application in Crl.O.P.No.14348 of 2020 filed by the petitioner seeking for anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court on 15.09.2020 following the orders passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.13334 of 2020 etc. Batch dated 03.09.2020 and there is no change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier application. Hence, he vehemently opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶16

This Court on the earlier occasion in Crl.O.P.No.14348 of 2020 by order dated 15.09.2020, 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.

¶17

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 has committed theft of one unit of river sand and transported the same by using Tractor and thereby, caused damage to the environment and there is no change in circumstances after the dismissal of the earlier application. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶19

-sd/-

¶20

22/03/2021

¶21

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

¶22

TRUE COPY

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶24

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUPATHUR. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VELLORE. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUPATTUR TALUK POLICE STATION, TIRUPATTUR DISTRICT. CC to M/S.J.MUTHUKUMARAN, Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.4629/2021 Date :22/03/2021 TA-01/04/2021

¶25

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

Settu v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Settu v. the 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.Ifin Securities Finance Vs State by

Gobinath Vs State Rep. by

Mr.Vijayan Vs the State

Thangasekar @ Sekar Vs the Inspector of Police

V. Arumugham Vs the Executive Magistrate Cum

G.Arockiadass Vs State Rep. by Its