Allowed

Mathan v. State Rep by

Madras HC7 Jul 2023CRL OP/13434/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.OP.No.13434 of 2023, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner charged with illegal sand transportation under IPC 379 and 430. The order mandated a non-refundable deposit of Rs.10,000 to the District Mineral Foundation Trust and mandated reporting to the local Magistrate once arrested.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on condition of depositing Rs.10,000 to DMF Trust, executing a bond with sureties, and reporting every day at 10.30 am until further orders.

Mathan Vs State Rep by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.OP.No.13434 of 2023

¶2

Crl.OP.No.13434 of 2023

¶3

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

¶4

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 379, 430 of IPC r/w 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 in Crime No.233 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons have illegally transported 5 units of savudu sand by using lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-20-CJ-3615. Hence, the complaint.

¶6

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent. He would further submit that the allegations against the petitioner is that he had transported only one unit of savudu sand. However, without prejudice to his rights, the petitioner is prepared to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards any charitable organization or association as may be directed by this Court. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶7

1/6

¶8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶9

Crl.OP.No.13434 of 2023

¶10

The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would submit that the

¶11

accused persons have illegally transported 5 units of savudu sand by using lorry bearing Regn.No.TN-20-CJ-3615. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶12

5.In view of the rehabilitation undertaken under the Tamil Nadu District Mineral Foundation Rules, 2017, and in order to curb the illegal sand mining activities, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as non refundable deposit to the credit of the concerned District Mineral Foundation Trust, without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court.

¶13

6 . Merely, because the petitioner has deposited the said amount, it

¶14

would not amount to admission of his guilt. Therefore, it is open to the trial Court to deal with the case independently.

¶15

7.Taking note of the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to

¶16

grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶17

2/6

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

Crl.OP.No.13434 of 2023

¶20

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on

¶21

condition to make a non refundable deposit of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) by way of Demand Draft/RTGS/NEFT to the credit of the District Mineral Foundation Trust concerned and on such deposit and on receipt of proof of payment, 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 on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶22

[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 Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

¶23

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police every

¶24

3/6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

Crl.OP.No.13434 of 2023

¶27

day at 10.30 am, until further orders.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

trial.

¶31

[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].

¶32

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

07.07.2023

4/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Crl.OP.No.13434 of 2023

¶38

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

¶39

¶40

Crl.O.P.No.13434 of 2023

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

5/6

¶43

Crl.OP.No.13434 of 2023

¶44

07.07.2023

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

6/6

Mathan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathan v. State Rep by

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

Devi Vs State Rep by

Ambiga Vs Inspector of Police

V.Ramesh Babu Vs State Rep.by

S.Parthasarathy Vs the Inspector of Police Crime

Saravanan Vs Inspector of Police

Sanjay Kumar Jain Vs State Rep by