Suresh Murugan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 17.03.2025 under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying to grant an order of pre-arrest bail.

¶17

The petitioner/Accused No.1 apprehends arrest at the hands of the

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

CRL OP(MD). No.5061 of 2025

¶21

respondent-Police for the offences punishable under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Sections 21(1) and 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No.67 of 2025, on the file of the respondent-police.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that based on the secret information, on 14.03.2025, at about 4.00 p.m., when the defacto complainant, who is the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Tirunelveli Taluk, along with her team and police, was on surveillance on Palaiyapettai Police checkpost, they found that the petitioner and other accused person were in illegal possession of two units of saral sand in a tipper lorry, bearing registration No.TN-72-BT-8302. On seeing the police, the petitioner and other accused person fled from the place of occurrence. The police seized the vehicle with 2 units of saral sand. Hence, this case.

¶23

Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. 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.

¶24

Per contra, Mr.S.S.Manoj, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

CRL OP(MD). No.5061 of 2025

¶28

appearing for the respondent-Police, submits that the petitioner and other accused person were in illegal possession of two units of saral sand. He further submits that the petitioner has no previous case. He however submits that if pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioner, he may commit similar type of offence. Hence, he prays to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition.

¶29

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

¶30

The petitioner has permanent residence and deep roots in the society. Hence, there is less possibility of absconding. The petitioner has no previous case. Considering the same, and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, and with a view to give an 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 conditions:

¶31

(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 No.V, Tirunelveli, 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.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 No.V, Tirunelveli;

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

CRL OP(MD). No.5061 of 2025

¶35

(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 No.V, Tirunelveli, shall obtain a copy of any one of identity proofs to ensure their identity;

¶36

(iii) The petitioner shall furnish his residential address and mobile number to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli;

¶37

(iv) The petitioner shall appear and sign before the respondent-Police weekly twice i.e., on every Monday and Friday at 10.00 a.m., until further orders;

¶38

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

¶39

(vi) 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;

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

(ix) On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tirunelveli, or Trial Court as the case may be, is entitled to pass

¶43

4/6

¶44

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

¶45

CRL OP(MD). No.5061 of 2025

¶46

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].

¶47