Allowed

Saravanan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC1 Sept 2021CRL OP(MD)/12189/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner charged with illegally transporting river sand. The bail is conditional upon paying Rs.15,000 to the CMPRF fund and executing a bond. The court also directed the police to confiscate vehicles used for illegal sand transportation under Section 21(4-A) of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on conditions of payment to CMPRF and execution of bond; Police directed to confiscate vehicles used in the offence.

Saravanan Vs The Inspector of Police — Mining and Natural Resources | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.12189 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 01/09/2021 PRESENT

¶3

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI

¶4

CRL OP(MD). No.12189 of 2021

¶5

Saravanan ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Ayyampettai Police Station, Thanjavur District. (Crime No.471/2021) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.R.L.DHILIPANPANDIAN Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.P.KOTTAI CHAMY, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶6

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C

¶7

PRAYER :-

¶8

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.471 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶9

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶10

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC r/w Section 21(4) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act), 1957 in Crime No.471 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶11

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had illegally transported one unit of river sand. Hence, the present case has been registered.

¶12

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, to show his bona fide, the petitioner has come forward to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the credit of Chief Minister's Public Relief Fund.

¶13

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner had transported one unit of river sand illegally. He further submitted that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner.

¶14

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

¶15

1/3

¶16

CRL OP(MD). No.12189 of 2021

¶17

5.Considering the nature of mineral involved, the antecedent of the petitioner and his willingness to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the credit of Chief Minister's Public Relief Fund, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed on condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only)to the credit of Government of Tamil Nadu, CMPRF in IOB , Secretariat Branch, Chennai-9 (Account No.11720 10000 00070, IFSC Code: IOBA0001172), without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court and produce the receipt/acknowledgment before the Judicial Magistrate-III, Thanjavur District.

¶18

6.On production of such receipt/acknowledgment, 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-III, Thanjavur District, on condition that the 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:

¶19

[a] the 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 Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity.

¶20

[b] the petitioner shall report before respondent police daily at 10.30 am., until further orders.

¶21

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

¶22

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶23

[e] 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].

¶24

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

¶25

7.It is needless to say that any tool or instrument or vehicle used for illegal quarrying/ transportation of sand is liable to be seized under Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals(Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and any vehicle or instrument or tool which has been seized under Section 21 (4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, is liable to be confiscated under Section 21(4-A) of the Act.

¶26

8.Though the above provision mandates the authorities to confiscate the tool or instrument or vehicle involved in the commission of the offence of illegal quarrying / transportation of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

2/3

¶28

CRL OP(MD). No.12189 of 2021

¶29

sand, the authorities have not invoked the provision of 21 (4-A) of the Mines and Minerals(Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and therefore, a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19936 of 2016, etc., batch has emphasised the need for confiscation of the vehicles. Consequently, the Government has also issued certain directions to the authorities of Revenue, Police and Forest and Geology and Mining departments to seize the vehicles and for confiscation of the same in G.O.Ms.No.170, Industries (MMC-2) Department, dated 05.08.2020. Therefore, the respondent police is directed to proceed further as per Section 21 (4-A) of the Mines and Minerals(Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.170, Industries (MMC-2) Department, dated 05.08.2020.

¶30

sd/01/09/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶31

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶32

¶33

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.III THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

¶34

2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THANJAVUR DISTRICT AT KUMBAKONAM.

¶35

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AYYAMPETTAI POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

¶36

4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶37

COPY TO:

¶38

THE OFFICER INCHARGE

¶39

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, CHIEF MINISTER PUBLIC RELIEF FUND, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI-9.

¶40

ORDER

¶41

SA/CN/SAR.2/16.09.2021/3P/6C

¶42

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

¶43

3/3

Saravanan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kodeeshwaran Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Gnanasekar Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Pauldurai Vs The Inspector of Police

Ramachandran Vs The Inspector of Police

Perumal Vs The Inspector of Police

Merankhani Vs The Forest Ranger