Allowed

Harish v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC21 Aug 2024CRL OP/20200/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras granted bail to the petitioner, Harish, who was in judicial custody for over 30 days regarding illegal transport of river sand. The court balanced the nature of the offence, the period of detention, and the petitioner's four prior similar cases (from which he was previously released) before imposing strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by executing a bond for Rs.10,000 with two sureties for a like sum, subject to reporting to police weekly and compliance with conditions against absconding and tampering wi

Harish Vs the State Rep by Its — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.20200 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.20200 of 2024

Harish

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Gudiyatham Taluk Police Station, Vellore District, (Crime No. 339 of 2024).

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S.,

¶13

pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending investigation in Crime No.

¶14

339 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Thirumoorthy

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinothkumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody

¶19

on 21.07.2024, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 379 and 430

¶20

of IPC r/w 21(1) of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act,

¶21

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

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.20200 of 2024

¶23

1957, in Crime No.339 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was found in illegal transportation of 1/4 unit of river sand in a bullock cart without having any valid permission. Hence the complaint.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case, since he has got some previous cases. He has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He would further submit that the petitioner was arrested and is in judicial custody for more than 30 days and is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed bail for the petitioner.

¶26

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner was found in illegal transportation of 1/4 unit of river sand in a bullock cart without any valid permission from the competent authority and that the property was also

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.20200 of 2024

¶29

seized. He further submitted that the petitioner has 4 previous cases, similar in nature, pending against him, and thereby, he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶30

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.

¶31

Considering the nature of offence, quantity involved and the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and also considering that the petitioner has 4 previous cases, in all of the cases, he has been released on bail, and also considering the fact that the material was already seized by the officials, and also considering all others factors, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

¶32

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail 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 Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham, Vellore District, and on further conditions that:-

¶33

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, on

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.20200 of 2024

¶36

every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

¶37

[b] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial 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].

¶41

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

21.08.2024

drl

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

¶46

Crl.O.P.No.20200 of 2024

¶47

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.

¶48

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

¶49

3.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Gudiyatham.

¶50

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶51

P.DHANABAL, J .

¶52

drl

¶53

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

¶54

Crl.O.P.No.20200 of 2024

¶55

Crl.O.P.No.20200 of 2024

¶56

21.08.2024

¶57

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

Harish v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish v. the State Rep by Its

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

M.Sundaresan Vs State Rep by

R.Rajkumar Vs State by Inspector of Police Crime

Ranjith Vs The State Rep by

Ravikaran Vs State Rep by

Jeevan Vs State, rep. by

Manikumar Vs State Rep.by