Allowed

Govintharaj v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC24 Mar 2025CRL OP(MD)/4708/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner accused of illegal river sand excavation under the Mines and Minerals Act and BNS, rejecting the police's objection regarding pending cases. The court imposed conditions including bond execution, daily police reporting, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted subject to executing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties, daily appearance before police, and compliance with other standard conditions.

Govintharaj Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Mining and Natural Resources | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.4708 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 24/03/2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.4708 of 2025

¶8

Govintharaj

¶9

... Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶10

¶11

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Taluk Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. Crime No.28 of 2025.

¶12

... Respondent/Complainant

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.N.Tamizharasan,

¶14

Advocate

¶15

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

¶16

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS

¶17

PRAYER :-

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

CRL OP(MD). No.4708 of 2025

¶21

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.28 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶22

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶23

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 11.03.2025

¶24

under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying to grant an order of pre-arrest bail.

¶25

The petitioner / A2 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent-police for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) BNS r/w. Section 21(1) of MMDR Act, in Crime No.28 of 2025 on the file of the respondent-police.

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that on 25.02.2025, when the defacto complainant, who is the Village Administrative Officer of Sriagikottai Revenue Village and his Assistant along with some Police officials, who are attached to the respondent-Police Station, were on patrol duty, regarding sand theft they came that some unknown person had been illegally excavating and transporting 10 units of river sand without valid permit. Hence, the case.

¶27

Mr.C.N. Tamizharasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that

¶28

the petitioner is an innocent person, and he has not committed any offence as alleged

¶29

2/6

¶30

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

¶31

CRL OP(MD). No.4708 of 2025

¶32

by the prosecution, and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He however submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. He therefore prays for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶33

Per contra, Mr.S.S.Manoj, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent-police, submits that there are eight previous cases pending against the petitioner, out of which, two cases are similar in nature. He further submits that based on the confession of co-accused, the petitioner herein is arrayed as accused. He further submits that the investigation of the case is still pending and, thereafter, at this stage of investigation, if pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioner, he may cause threat to the witnesses and commit the similar offence. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition.

¶34

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

¶35

In view of the offence alleged against the petitioner and quantity of river sand allegedly excavated and transported by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation is not necessary in this case. The petitioner has permanent residence and deep roots in the society and therefore, there is less possibility for absconding. Considering the same, and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking note of the fact that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner, and with a view to give one more opportunity to the

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

CRL OP(MD). No.4708 of 2025

¶39

petitioner to reform himself, this Court is inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.

¶40

(i) The petitioner shall be released on pre-arrest bail in the event of his arrest or in the event of his surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, within a period of 15 days from date on which the order copy is made ready, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) along with two sureties each for a like sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi.

¶41

(ii) 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, Paramakudi, shall obtain a copy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity.

¶42

(iii) The petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent - police daily at 10.00 am until further orders;

¶43

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

¶44

(v) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶45

4/6

¶46

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

¶47

CRL OP(MD). No.4708 of 2025

¶48

(vi) The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶49

(vii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly cause any threat to the defacto complainant and tamper with the evidence.

¶50

(viii) The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and mobile number to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi.

¶51

(ix) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, 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].

¶52