Allowed

M.Nithya v. State Rep.

Madras HC23 Apr 2021CRL OP/6239/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras granted anticipatory bail to M.Nithya regarding a complaint of illegal sand transportation under Section 379 IPC and the Mines and Minerals Act. The Court corrected a prior erroneous finding of 'bad antecedents' and ordered release on bond with sureties upon arrest.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail subject to surrender within fifteen days, execution of bond with two sureties summing to Rs.10,000 each, and compliance with standard conditions.

M.Nithya Vs State Rep. — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 23.04.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.6239 of 2021

¶6

M.Nithya ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Nagoor Police Station Nagapattinam Dt. (Crime No.1537 of 2020) ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.1537 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.K.Madhan Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶14

The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C. and Section 21 (1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in connection with Crime No.1537 of 2020 on the file of respondent police and this is the second petition seeking for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner said to have transported six units of savudu sand by using tipper lorry without any valid license. Hence, the complaint was registered against the petitioner.

¶16

Earlier, this Court had passed an order dated 09.02.2021 in Crl.O.P.No.2023 of 2021 dismissing the petition on the ground that the petitioner is having bad antecedents.

¶17

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

¶18

Today, when the matter taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate, on instructions, would submit that there is no bad antecedents against the petitioner and earlier, it has been wrongly stated that there is one previous case against the petitioner. It was also stated that the investigation is almost completed.

¶19

Taking into consideration of the fact that there is no bad antecedents against the petitioner and now, the investigation is almost completed , this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

¶20

a) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Nagapattinam, 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, and on further condition that:

¶21

[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;

¶22

[c] the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation ;

¶23

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

¶24

[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶25

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the 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];

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

-sd/-

¶30

23/04/2021

¶31

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

¶32

TRUE COPY

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-II, NAGAPATTINAM.

¶36

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NAGAPATTINAM [FOR INFORMATION].

¶37

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAGOOR POLICE STATION, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT.

¶38

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶39

CC to M/S.S.VINOTH KUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges

CRL OP.6239/2021

Date :23/04/2021

MN-29/06/2021

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

M.Nithya v. State Rep.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Nithya v. State Rep.

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

P.T.Ramesh Vs State Rep by

E.Kathirvel Vs The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar

P.Senthil Kumar Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Manikandan Vs the Inspector of Police

D.Ashokraj Vs The District Collector

M.Ramachandran Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu