Allowed

A. Subramani v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC29 Apr 2022CRL OP(MD)/8251/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail granted to accused apprehending arrest for illegal excavation of sand. Petitioner ordered to deposit Rs. 10,000 to District Mineral Foundation and report to police daily for one month. He must execute bond for Rs. 25,000. Non-compliance warrants arrest.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on deposit of Rs. 10,000 and executing bond for Rs. 25,000 with sureties, subject to daily reporting and other conditions.

A. Subramani Vs The Inspector of Police — Mining and Natural Resources | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.8251 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Date : 29.04.2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.8251 of 2022

¶7

A.Subramani ... Petitioner/ Accused No.2

¶8

Vs The State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Vadipatti Police Station, Vadipatti, Madurai District. (Crime No.99 of 2022) ... Respondent/ Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivakumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶9

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

¶10

PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.99 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent police.

¶11

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶12

The petitioner/A.2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 379 IPC r/w Section 21(5) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No.99 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶13

2.The case of the prosecution is that the first accused has been doing bricks manufacturing in his patta land and that on 30.03.2022, the first accused along with the petitioner without getting any valid permission from the Government had dig the gravel sand in the said patta land. Hence, the complaint.

¶14

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, he would further submit that the petitioner, without prejudice to his right, is ready to deposit the amount that may be imposed by this Court.

¶15

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

¶16

1/3

¶17

CRL OP(MD). No.8251 of 2022

¶18

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the owner of the vehicle was granted anticipatory bail by directing him to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and that the petitioner is the driver of the said vehicle.

¶19

5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner has excavated 280 units of gravel sand illegally. He would further submit that the petitioner is not having any previous cases.

¶20

6.Considering the above and also the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶21

7.Accordingly, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the credit of the District Mineral Foundation Trust, Madurai District, without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court and produce the receipt/acknowledgment before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti.

¶22

8.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, Vadipatti, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:

¶23

[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.

¶24

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one month and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

2/3

¶29

CRL OP(MD). No.8251 of 2022

¶30

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

¶31

sd/-

¶32

29/04/2022 / TRUE COPY / / /2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. 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.

¶33

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VADIPATTI. 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI DISTRICT. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADIPATTI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT

¶34

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. COPY TO: THE OFFICER INCHARGE, DISTRICT MINERAL FOUNDATION TRUST, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶35

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.8251 of 2022 Date :29/04/2022 CSM MK/PN/SAR.IV/04.05.2022/3P/6C

¶36

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

¶37

3/3

A. Subramani v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Subramani 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vanjith @ Vanjiya Devan Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Murugavel Vs The Inspector of Police

Sekar @ Chandrasekar Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Vijayan Vs The Inspector of Police

Sakthi Sree Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Siva Shankar @ Sivashankaran Vs the State Rep by Its