Allowed

Silambarasan v. State Rep.by

Madras HC23 Jan 2024CRL OP/1314/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal original petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Madras granted bail to the accused accused of illegal sand transportation, imposing a non-refundable deposit and specific reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to a non-refundable deposit of Rs.5,000, execution of a bond with two sureties for Rs.10,000 each, and reporting to police daily for two weeks.

Silambarasan Vs State Rep.by — Money Laundering | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.1314 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.01.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.1314 of 2024

¶7

Silambarasan

¶8

S/o. Mohan Raj

¶9

... Petitioner/ Accused

¶10

Vs.

¶11

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Gudiyatham Taluk Police Station, Vellore District. Crime No.7 of 2024 ... Respondent/Complainant

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the Petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime No.7 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. A. Vijaya Kumar For Respondent : Mr. L. Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶14

1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.1314 of 2024

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner seeks bail in Crime No.7 of 2024, registered by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 430 of IPC and he had been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.01.2024.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is alleged to

¶19

have transported 1/4 unit of river sand illegally. Hence, the complaint.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

¶21

that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police submitted that the quantity of river sand involved is 1/4 unit. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶23

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.1314 of 2024

¶25

In order to curb illegal sand mining activities, this Court is of the

¶26

opinion that the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/(Rupees Five Thousand only) as non refundable deposit to the credit of District Revenue Officer, Vellore District, without prejudice to their rights and contentions before the trial Court.

¶27

Merely, because the petitioner deposits the said amount, it would

¶28

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

¶29

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the learned counsels, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶30

Accordingly, the petitioner shall make a non-refundable deposit of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as non refundable deposit to the credit of District Revenue Officer, Vellore, and on such deposit and production of proof, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.1314 of 2024

¶34

with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham, Vellore District and on further conditions that :-

¶35

[a] 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.

¶36

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

[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].

¶40

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

¶41

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

Crl.O.P.No.1314 of 2024

23.01.2024

smv

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham.

¶47

2.The Central Prison, Vellore.

¶48

3.The Inspector of Police, Gudiyatham Taluk Police Station, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.

¶49

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶50

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN. J.

¶51

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

Crl.O.P.No.1314 of 2024

¶53

smv

¶54

Crl.O.P.No.1314 of 2024

¶55

23.01.2024

¶56

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Silambarasan v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Silambarasan 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

Balaji Vs State Rep by

Rajesh @ Malabar Rajesh Vs State Rep.by

Selvamani Vs the Inspector of Police

Chinnasamy Vs Inspector of Police

M.Murugesan Vs Inspector of Police

Rizwan Vs State Rep by