Allowed

Balakrishnan @ Balakittu v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC26 Feb 2025CRL OP(MD)/3624/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case involving illegal excavation and transport of river sand under BNS and Mines and Minerals Act. The court considered the petitioner's permanent residence and the seizure of the vehicle while imposing strict conditions for release and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted subject to execution of bond for Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, appearance before Judicial Magistrate Pattukottai, and other standard conditions.

Balakrishnan @ Balakittu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.3624 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 26/02/2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.3624 of 2025

¶8

Balakrishnan @ Balakittu ... Petitioner/Accused -rank not known

¶9

¶10

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Adiramapattinam Police Station, Thanjavur.

¶11

Cr. No. 102/2025. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj,

¶14

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS

¶16

PRAYER :-

¶17

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 102/2025 on the file of the respondent-Police.

¶18

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

¶19

1/6

¶20

CRL OP(MD). No.3624 of 2025

¶21

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶22

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 24.02.2025 under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 praying to grant an order of pre-arrest bail.

¶23

The petitioner/Accused-rank not known apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent-Police for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No.102 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that based on the secret information, when the defacto complainant was conducting vehicle check-up near Adiramapattinam Main Road, they found that the petitioner was illegally excavating and transporting quarter unit of river sand in a Bolero pickup vehicle. On seeing the police, the petitioner fled from the place of occurrence leaving the vehicle. The police seized the vehicle. Hence, this case.

¶25

Mr.K.M.Karunakaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

¶26

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

¶27

2/6

¶28

CRL OP(MD). No.3624 of 2025 submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. He however submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶29

Mr.S.S.Manoj, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent-Police, submits that the petitioner is the owner-cum-driver and he was illegally excavating and transporting quarter unit of river sand and the same was seized by the respondent-police. He further submits that the petitioner has two previous cases, which are similar in nature. Hence, he prays to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition.

¶30

Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records.

¶31

The petitioner has permanent residence and hence, there is less possibility of absconding. Considering the same, the facts and circumstances of the case, the quantity of the sand illegally excavated and transported by the petitioner and the fact that the vehicle, along with river sand was seized by the respondent-police and with a view to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to reform himself, this Court is inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to the following

¶32

conditions:

¶33

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

¶34

3/6

¶35

CRL OP(MD). No.3624 of 2025

¶36

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest or in the event of his surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) along with two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai;

¶37

(ii) Thereafter, the petitioner shall appear and sign before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, on all working days at 10.00 a.m. and 5.30 p.m., until further orders;

¶38

(iii) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the Application for Suretyship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to ‘The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019’]. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai shall obtain a copy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity;

¶39

(vi) The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and mobile number to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai;

¶40

(vii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶41

(viii) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat

¶42

or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

4/6

¶44

CRL OP(MD). No.3624 of 2025

¶45

from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶46

(ix) The petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court;

¶47

(x) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, cause any threat to the defacto-complainant and witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence; and

¶48

(xi) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, or Trial Court as the case may be, is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions are imposed by him as laid down by the Hon-ble Supreme Court in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) 13 SCC 283].

¶49