BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Eighth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN CRL OP(MD) No.14441 of 2011 1. RAJA, 2. KAMARAJ ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 & 2 Vs THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANAGUDI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.ANAND Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A1 & A2 as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioners/A1 & A2 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 379 IPC., and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957, in Crime No.463 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police have come forward with the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail. 3. As per the prosecution case the first petitioner and his father/second petitioner were carrying clay in a tempo, approximately of two units and on the complaint given by the Sub Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, the case was registered. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that under Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957, the respondent is not a competent authority to prosecute the petition and further the clay does not come under the purview of the said Act. He further submits that the value of the clay per unit is approximately Rs.750/-. However there is no material to decide the value of the unit of clay. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent has not disputed the fact that there is no bad antecedents against the petitioners so far as the alleged offence is concerned. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that there is no bad antecedents against the petitioners, I find it just and reasonable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned on the following conditions :- (i) the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) to the credit of Crime No.463 of 2011 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor and on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor. (ii) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am., for a period of four weeks. (iii) the said amount shall not be released without the order of this Court. 7. The petitioners shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days , failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 08/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VALLIYOOR 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANAGUDI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. R.ANAND Advocate SR.No.38562 GH : 10.11.2011 : 2P/6C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14441 of 2011 Date :08/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/