Allowed

Dhinakaran v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Feb 2024CRL OP/2519/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to the petitioner in an FIR for illegal transport of river sand, subject to deposit of Rs. 5,000 to District Revenue Officer and execution of bond, along with reporting and non-interference conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to deposit of Rs. 5,000 to District Revenue Officer, Vellore, and execution of bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

Dhinakaran Vs Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.2519 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.2519 of 2024

¶7

Dhinakaran

¶8

...Petitioner/Accused

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Gudiyatham Town Police Station, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.

¶11

(Crime No.11 of 2024) ...Respondent

¶12

PRAYER:

¶13

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.11 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police on such terms and conditions.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Vinodhkumar

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶16

1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.2519 of 2024

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner seeks bail in Crime No.11 of 2024, registered by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 430 of

¶20

IPC. The petitioner had been arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.01.2024.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was alleged to have transported 200 kgs of river sand in two-wheeler. Hence the complaint.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further stated that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶23

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent stated that the petitioner has illegally transported 200 kgs of river sand in two-wheeler. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶24

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

¶25

2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.2519 of 2024

¶27

the 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

¶28

the District Revenue Officer, Vellore District , without prejudice to his rights and contentions before the trial Court.

¶29

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

¶30

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:

¶31

Accordingly, the petitioner shall make a non-refundable deposit

¶32

of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the credit of the District Revenue Officer, Vellore District, and on such deposit and production of proof, 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, and on further conditions that :-

¶33

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the

¶34

3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.2519 of 2024

¶36

Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

¶37

[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.

¶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 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 229A IPC.

¶42

07.02.2024

¶43

ata

¶44

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN. J.

¶45

ata

¶46

¶47

4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

Crl.O.P.No.2519 of 2024

¶49

The Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham.

¶50

The Central Prison, Vellore.

¶51

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

¶52

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶53

Crl.O.P.No.2519 of 2024

¶54

07.02.2024

¶55

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

Dhinakaran v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhinakaran v. 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

Mani Rathnam Vs Inspector of Police

Badrajalam @ Batrasalam Vs State Rep by

Manikandan Vs the State Represented by

Sivamohan Vs the Inspector of Police

Sanjai Kumar Brahma Vs the State Rep.by

Sasi Kumar Vs State Represented by