M Piratla vs Special Sub Inspector Of

V. Sivagnanam, J

The petitioner/accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under section 379 IPC r/w Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in Crime No. 172 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

The case of the prosecution is that when the respondent police was on patrolling duty, the petitioner herein and other accused have illegally transported big stones by using four Lorries. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and his name has been falsely implicated in this case. and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner herein is not having any previous case and the investigation of the case is pending.

On perusal of the FIR, it is noticed that the petitioner herein has illegally transported big stones by using Lorry.

6.Taking into consideration the principles stated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Etc., vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 AIR 1632 and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2009)4 SCC 437 and Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994)4 SCC 260, this Court is of the considered view that the alleged offence against the petitioner is not a case of heinous crime. Further, the petitioner is having permanent resident at Thirunelveli District. In this circumstances, the principles stated in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar reported in AIR 1979 SC 1360 is taken into consideration and the origin of crime is sand theft. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that pre-trial detention is not be encouraged nor is to be encourageable pre-trial release on sureties; that if the Court is satisfied after taking into consideration that the accused has his roots in the community and is not likely to abscond, he can safely be released on his personal bond.

In view of the above, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kuzhithurai, Kanniyakumari District on condition that the petitioner shall execute own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that :

[a] the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on receipt of summons as directed by the trial Court.

[b] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[d] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].

[e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.