Dismissed

Kumaresan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC15 Oct 2024CRL OP(MD)/16133/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by a scrap merchant accused of possessing stolen railway rails. The court noted recovery of rails from the shop and confessional evidence, deeming the petitioner a receiver of stolen property.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioner not inclined to be granted bail.

Kumaresan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL OP(MD) No.16133 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 15.10.2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI CRL OP(MD) No.16133 of 2024

¶6

... Petitioners/Accused

¶7

Kumaresan ... Petitioners/Accused Vs 1.The Inspector of Police, Railway Protection Force, Madurai District, [Crime No.9 of 2024]. ... Respondent/Complainant (*)2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam. ... 2^nd Respondent

¶8

(*)[R-2 is suo motu impleaded as per order of the Court dated 01.10.2024 in CRL OP(MD).16133/2024 by BPJ]

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Jeyamohan For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.Govindarajan, Deputy Solicitor General of India, Assisted by Mr.V.Malaiyendiran, Central Government Standing Counsel For Respondent No.2 : Mr.A.Baskaran, Additional Government Pleader

¶10

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C)

¶11

PRAYER :-

¶12

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.9 of 2024 on the file of the 1^st respondent Police.

¶13

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶14

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

¶15

1/9

¶16

CRL OP(MD) No.16133 of 2024

¶17

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Amendment Act, 2012, in connection with Crime No.9 of 2024, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶18

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this case itself has been foisted as against this petitioner, at the instigation of one Sahayaraj, with whom, the petitioner is having a civil dispute. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is running a scrap business in S.No.332/1A1A, Thirumangalam Village and Taluk and the above said Sahayaraj is also claiming right over the subject property. Therefore, civil litigations in O.S.Nos.130 of 2024 and 116 of 2024 are pending before the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam. The learned counsel has also relied on the proceedings initiated under Section 145 of Cr.P.C before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam, in between the petitioner and the said Sahayaraj.

¶19

3.This Court considering the submissions made on either side on 01.10.2024 has passed the following order:

¶20

“3.Considering the above order, dated 23.08.2024 and the submissions

¶21

made by the learned Government Advocate (Civil side), who has appeared for the District Collector, Madurai and the Revenue Divisional

¶22

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

¶23

2/9

¶24

CRL OP(MD) No.16133 of 2024

¶25

Officer, Thirumangalam in the said writ petition, this Court suo motu impleads the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam as a respondent in this Criminal Original Petition and issues the following directions:

¶26

i. The learned Additional Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the newly impleaded respondent and to get written instructions from him as to whether any RPF officer has participated in the enquiry proceedings, which is pending before him in Na.Ka.No.2174/2024/A2.

¶27

ii. This Court also expects the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam to furnish the entire files, with regard to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2174/2024/A2.

¶28

iii. The learned Additional Government Pleader is directed to get instructions with regard to the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Civil side) in WP(MD) No.20129 of 2024.

¶29

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following grounds in support of his contentions :

¶30

i. The petitioner is a scrap merchant doing his business in S.No.332/1A1A, Thirumangalam Village and Taluk, for nearly 20 years and there is no adverse case /remarks as against him.

¶31

ii. The alleged stolen rails were recovered from A1 to A3 on 07.06.2024

¶32

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

¶33

3/9

¶34

CRL OP(MD) No.16133 of 2024

¶35

and the respondent police have not recovered any rails from this petitioner's shop. Though the petitioner's son/A4 was arrested on 07.06.2024, there is no recovery from him also. The petitioner and his son were implicated in this case, based on the confession statements of the coaccused and the investigation agency has not collected any other materials other than the confession statements of the co-accused.

¶36

iii. It is also stated that this case itself has been foisted at the instigation of one Sahayaraj, who is having a rival claim for the property, where, the petitioner is running his business. According to him, two civil suits in O.S.Nos.130 of 2024 and 116 of 2024, between the petitioner and the said Sahayaraj are pending before the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam. Apart from that, a proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C is also pending between them before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam.”

¶37

Considering the above submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court by order dated 01.10.2024 also directed the respondents to file their response for the presence of the RPF Officer in the proceedings pending between the petitioner and one Shayaraj.

¶38

5.Today the learned Deputy Solicitor General has produced the general diary https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

4/9

¶40

CRL OP(MD) No.16133 of 2024

¶41

maintained in the office of the RPF and states that the officers of the RPF went in search of the petitioner / accused in his residence and also to the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam to collect the information about this petitioner / accused.

¶42

6.The learned Government Pleader has also appeared and submitted that neither the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirumangalam nor any officer has given instructions to the learned Government Advocate (Civil Side) in WP(MD)No.20129 of 2024 about the presence of the RPF Officer in the proceedings of the RDO. He also submits that order was passed based on the petitioner's submission. However it has been wrongly mentioned as the submission of the learned Government Advocate in paragraph No.4 of the order dated 23.08.2024. The learned Government Pleader further submits that it has already been brought to the notice of the Court concerned and the Court has also permitted to list the matter 'for being mentioned' .

¶43

7.The petitioner has taken two other grounds that there is no recovery from his son as well from his shop. The learned Deputy Solicitor General has produced a copy of the mahazar and submits that A1 to A3 were arrested on 06.06.2024 in the morning and based on the confession statement of A1, they went and conducted search in RK Metal shop belonging to this petitioner and arrested the petitioner's son Santhosh on

¶44

06.06.2024 around 5.00pm and they also recovered 5 fish plates having four holes, 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

5/9

¶46

CRL OP(MD) No.16133 of 2024

¶47

patrol clips, 1 rail having length of 1.75 metres, 1 rail having a length of 70 cm, 5 rails having length of 3 metres each, in total 17.50 metres of rails were recovered from the petitioner's shop namely R.K.Metal on 06.06.2024. From the mahazar it appears that rails have been recovered from the petitioner's shop R.K.Metal on 06.06.2024.

¶48

8.The learned Deputy Solicitor General has also produced an audio recording of

¶49

the enquiry conducted by the investigating agency with A4 Santhosh and its transcription and submits that A4 during the enquiry has admitted that they usually receive the rails and he has received the rail two times and his father has received the rails four times.

¶50

9.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the fourth anticipatory bail application and the earlier applications were dismissed by this Court by considering the submission made by the respondent police that 28.05 metres of rails had to be recovered, but the respondent police has not made out any case and they have not quantified the extent of rails alleged to be missing and there is no complaint whatsoever from the Railways Department. The learned Counsel further submits that since the earlier applications were dismissed on the ground of nonrecovery of 28.5metres of rails, the petitioner is also prepared to deposit the amount equivalent to the rails, without prejudice to his defence.

¶51

10.The learned Counsel further submits that even according to the prosecution https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

6/9

¶53

CRL OP(MD) No.16133 of 2024

¶54

the petitioner is the receiver of the stolen property and the offence of theft is a distinct offence, unless the theft is proved, the receiver of the goods cannot be accused and this case is registered for the offence under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Amendment Act and maximum punishment for this offence is imprisonment of five years only and as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, this case is not a case, which require custodial interrogation.

¶55

11.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record.

¶56

12.The respondent police has found three persons with rails on 06.06.2024 and arrested them and based on their confession statements, they proceeded to the petitioner's shop namely RK Metals and recovered some more rails from the petitioner's shop. Though the petitioner claims that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner's shop, FIR discloses that these rails have been concealed by the petitioner in the nearby bushes. The respondent police has recovered these rails and fish plates from the petitioner's shop and from the nearby bushes under a mahazar on 06.06.2024. The respondent has raised objections that some more rails have to be recovered.

¶57

13.The rail cannot be treated as an ordinary property. The removal of a small https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

7/9

¶59

CRL OP(MD) No.16133 of 2024

¶60

piece of rail may cause serious accidents and several innocent lives may be at stake. The petitioner is the owner of RK Metals from where, rails and other stolen articles have been recovered. The persons, who receive the stolen property are the persons, who encourage the offence committed. Therefore this Court has to take a serious view as against the receiver of the stolen property than the main offender. The railway property can be easily identified, even then, the petitioner for making out money has encouraged this type of offence and the offenders by receiving the stolen property. The Mahazar dated 06.06.2024 reveals the recovery of railway properties from this petitioner shop. The petitioner's son A4 was arrested. The enquiry by the investigating officer with A4 has been recorded and the transcription of the same has been produced. The petitioner's son A4 has admitted the receipt of the railway goods twice by him and four times by his father, this petitioner.

¶61

14.Considering this nature of offence and the materials placed before this Court, this Court is not inclined to encourage these type of offenders by granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly this criminal original petition is dismissed.

¶62

sd/-

¶63

15/10/2024 / TRUE COPY /

¶64

/11/2024

¶65

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶66

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

¶67

8/9

¶68

CRL OP(MD) No.16133 of 2024

¶69

¶70

1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, MADURAI DISTRICT,

¶71

2.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUMANGALAM.

¶72

3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶73

+1 CC to M/s.K.JEYAMOHAN, Advocate ( SR-12526[I] dated 16/10/2024 )

¶74

ORDER

¶75

¶76

CRL OP(MD) No.16133 of 2024 Date :15/10/2024

¶77

RS/JGB/SAR-(04.11.2024) 9P 5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023

¶78

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

¶79

9/9

Kumaresan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumaresan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

Tirupathi Vs The District Revenue Officer

Vijay @ Pambu Kulambu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Anandhan Vs The District Revenue Officer

Rajula P Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

Vignesh M Vs The Secretary

M/S.Geethanjaly Mills Ltd., Vs the Enforcement Officer