Allowed

Kumar v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC16 Dec 2021CRL OP(MD)/20111/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused in a case involving illegal transport of river sand under Section 379 IPC and Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals Act. The court imposed conditions including payment to the District Mineral Foundation Trust, appearance before the Magistrate within fifteen days, and daily appearance before the police.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail with conditions: pay Rs. 15,000 to District Mineral Foundation Trust, appear before Magistrate within 15 days, execute bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, and ap

Kumar Vs The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 16/12/2021

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.20111 of 2021

¶8

Kumar ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs

¶9

The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Ammapettai Police Station, Thanjavur District. Cr.No. 1024 of 2021. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.L.Dhilipan Pandian, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.S.Manikandan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶11

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

¶12

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.1024 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶13

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner/Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 379 IPC and Section 21(4) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No.1024 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons had illegally transported 1 unit of river sand without any valid permit in the vehicle. Hence, the complaint.

¶16

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and not committed any such offence. Hence, prays to release him on bail.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is not having any

¶18

¶19

previous case at his credit and the investigation is not yet completed.

¶20

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, that the petitioner is not having any previous case at his credit, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶21

6.Accordingly, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the credit of the District Mineral Foundation Trust, Thanjavur, without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court and produce the receipt/acknowledgment before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam.

¶22

7.On production of such receipt/acknowledgment, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or his appearance, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam and on his executing 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 the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am for a period of one month and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶23

8.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

¶24

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

¶25

PNM

¶26

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.

¶27

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PAPANASAM.

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

COPY TO THE OFFICER INCHAREGE DISTRICT MINERAL FOUNDATION TRUST, THANJAVUR.

¶34

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.20111 of 2021 Date : 16/12/2021 VB/CN/SAR-II/22.12.2021/3P/6C

¶35

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

Kumar v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saravanan, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Duraichamy Vs the Inspector of Police

T. Raja, S/O.Thirukannan Vs the Tahsildar Cum Executive

M.Deepalakshmi Vs P.Chandrasekaran

Gayathri Vs Senthil Kumar

Samuel Vs The Inspector of Police