BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the First day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.14195 of 2011 KOVIL PITCHAI ... PETITIONER / 2nd ACCUSED Vs THE STATE THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MOOLAKARAIPATTI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.133 OF 2011. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. D.VENKATESH Advocate For Respondent : M/S. K.S.DURAIPANDIAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.133 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offences under Sections 379 IPC and Section 21(1)(5) of the Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act 1957 in Crime No.133 of 2011. He is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 2. According to the case of prosecution, the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 72 Q 3840 was found moving with one unit of illegally mined sand. The same was intercepted. The driver of the Tractor was taken into custody and he is the first accused. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. According to the prosecution, it was only on his direction, the driver, who is none other than the son of the petitioner, carried sand illegally mined in the vehicle. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would deny all the above allegations. According to him, the petitioner was not even present at the time of occurrence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that he had no knowledge that he was allegedly used for the purpose of carrying the sand illegally. 4. I have considered the above submissions. 5. As of now, there is no controversy that the petitioner was not available in the vehicle and the petitioner happens to be the owner of the vehicle and there is no primafacie material to show that with his knowledge the vehicle was used for the purpose of carrying https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ illegally mined sand. In such view of the matter, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail, but with stringent conditions. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri on 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. sd/- 01/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NANGUNERI 2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MOOLAKARAIPATTI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. +1. CC to M/S. D.VENKATESH Advocate SR.No.37341 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14195 of 2011 Date :01/11/2011 SMA/02.11.2011/6C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/