Annavi vs State Rep And Others

G.Ilangovan, J

The Court made the following order:-

This petitioner, who is arrayed as A1 apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under sections 379 IPC and section 2(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No.1110 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The petitioner is facing the charges for the offences punishable under sections 379 IPC and section 2(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

3.Heard both sides.

4.The earlier anticipatory bail, which was filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by this court noting that the petitioner is having previous case of similar nature in Crime No.147 of 2021. This is the second anticipatory bail application, which has been filed by the petitioner.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even though in Crime No.147 of 2021, he has been shown as accused person, reading of the above said FIR shows that the de-facto complainant is the Village Administrative Officer and on information, he visited the place of occurrence at about 10.30 am and at the time, he found that the lorry bearing registration No.TN-47-AZ-3539 was found captured and initiated action against the driver as well the owner of the vehicle. So on the basis of the above said complaint, a case was registered against the unknown persons.

6.The learned counsel appearing the petitioner would submit that the lorry along with sand was seized and no previous case was recorded against this petitioner along with the co-accused and on that ground, the bail was allowed. Later on a petition filed by one Viji, who purchased the vehicle and he is the owner of the tipper lorry bearing registration No.TN-47-AZ-3539 and that petition was allowed, by returning the above said vehicle with some conditions. So according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this petitioner in Crime No.147 of 2021 has been wrongly roped as an accused.

7.The Registration Certificate of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-47-AZ-3539, which is involved in this crime has been produced, wherein, we find that this petitioner is shown as the owner.

8.Reading of FIR shows that the Inspector of Police along with his party went to the place of occurrence and found one JCB was digging the sand and loading the same into the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-67-AD-4159 and the JCB vehicle was not having registration number and on seeing the police party, all the accused persons escaped from the place of occurrence. On inspection, they found that the chassis number was erased and the registration number has also not been mentioned. From the above factual aspects, even though the petitioner is roped actually as an accused, he is not the owner of the vehicle, but whereas it is one Viji, who is the owner.

9.Considering the above facts and circumstances of this case, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli, Special Court for Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 and 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 learned Judge concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court once in a week at 10.00 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Judge within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail will stand dismissed.